By now, it is likely that you have spent at least a bit of time familiarizing yourself with some of the pros and cons of Proposition 1A, the proposed $10 billion bond measure on the Nov. 4 election ballot. It is no secret that the grandiose plan for a high-speed rail setup linking San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco _ and certain points in between _ has its detractors. And the list is growing as the economy falls deeper into recession. California’s fiscal problems are bad and getting hairier. The timing of Prop. 1A could not be worse. But there’s more. San Mateo County, as we have noted recently, will be severely impacted by the planned system in ways even its proponents can’t describe with any real accuracy. There are lots of unanswered questions for those living on the Peninsula. And how about this one: Why would anyone seriously contemplate implementing not one, not two but three separate rail lines stretching from Millbrae to San Francisco? That’s right, three: BART, Caltrain and the new high-speed arrangement. A minimum of six tracks, plus a special set to San Francisco International Airport. Can you say utterly redundant and a waste of taxpayers’ money? Amazing.

With the combined U.S./California financial house of cards reeling in earnest, there is a certain surreal quality to yet another state ballot measure that would increase debt significantly. November’s Proposition 1A asks voters to OK almost $10 billion in bonds to begin work on a high-speed rail project that, when finished, would stretch from San Diego all the way to Sacramento and San Francisco. The eventual final cost of this grand plan is not known. Estimates are all over the map. Annual operating costs are little more than hopeful guesses as well. Still, the concept is intriguing. Electric trains racing north and south at speeds of over 200 miles per hour. Los Angeles to San Francisco in under three hours. Projected relief on the state’s highways and in the air. Great stuff. But, for San Mateo County residents, there is a troubling reality: No county in the state would bear the brunt of the proposed system more than this one. High-speed rail would follow the Caltrain right-of-way. Caltrain is also planning to go to a modern, electrified setup in the future. How many sets of tracks along the Peninsula would be required for all of this? Four, five, six or more? And what about freight trains? Where do they go? High-speed rail experts can’t say with finality. Studies have not been done. It’s too early in the game. And how about eminent domain? Will private property be seized to make way for a new rail line? No one can say for sure. And then there is the matter of grade separations and the very real possibility of walled berms dividing county communities in half. Again, the high-speed buffs can’t answer. In the end, local voters are being asked to approve something sight-unseen. They will be casting their ballots blindly. It’s not a formula for an intelligent decision.

The massive seismic shift in the ethnic makeup of San Mateo County’s public school student body is continuing unabated. Statistics released this summer indicate that an inexorable trend that began many years ago rolls on with few signs of diminishing. According to the latest numbers provided by the state, local public schools on the Peninsula contained 88,983 students in grades kindergarten through 12 in 2007-08, a very slight increase over the previous year. Of those youngsters, 34.7 percent were of Hispanic descent; 32.6 percent were Caucasian. Asian and Filipino children were 11.8 percent and 10 percent respectively and the rest were African-American, Pacific Islander and individuals representing other categories. Hispanic pupils became the county’s largest single ethnic student entity two years ago. That was an historic first for the Peninsula. To keep matters in some perspective, in 1970, the county’s public schools contained about 125,000 students, roughly 113,000 of them Caucasian. So, over a period of 38 years, the county has lost something on the order of 84,000 white kids. So-called minority youths have gone from 12,000 to almost 60,000 during that same time-frame. All of this has implications for local public schools, from test scores to graduation rates and fluency in English to four-year college admissions. The state’s most recent figures measure only public school pupils. Those in private and parochial schools are not involved in the data. In San Mateo County, one in every six children attends a non-public school.

Any analysis of San Mateo County’s governmental spending habits in this decade has to come to one conclusion: The times have been very, very good for public employees. From 1999-00 through 2007-08, the per worker cost increase for the county was 7.7 percent on an annual basis. That’s more than double the rate of inflation during that time. In fact, in the past fiscal year, the county’s taxpayers were providing an all-time record average of $116,607 per employee, according to the county’s own figures. A significant portion of that number goes toward paying for retirement, health insurance and other benefits. The county’s ongoing gravy train shows some recent signs of slowing down as the Peninsula’s housing market and overall economy begin to throttle back. But the past nine years have been so generous for the county’s public employee unions and others in government in the halls of Redwood City and elsewhere that the bulk of the county’s spending requirements well into the future are locked in. That’s why county officials are wary of what may be coming down the line. If their tax haul is seriously impaired, all of those long-term commitments come home to roost without sufficient dollars to pay for them. Then the you-know-what will really hit the proverbial fan.

Recent breathless accounts of new U.S. Census data and accompanying projections have indicated that, goodness gracious, whites will not be a majority of the American population within a generation. No kidding. In San Mateo County and the rest of California, that’s been the case for awhile when it comes to those of school age. In fact, whites aren’t even the biggest ethnic group anymore. Here on the Peninsula, Hispanic children made up 33.9 percent of the total public kindergarten-through-grade 12 student body in 2006-07, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the California state Department of Education. White pupils represented 33.7 percent. Asian and Filipino kids were next at 11.9 and 9.9 percent respectively. Black youngsters were 4.2 percent. It is fully anticipated that these trends will persist. That is due mainly to a continuing flow of immigrants (legal and illegal) to the area and higher birth rates among those newcomers, especially Hispanics.

It may not be fair, but, when a longtime English or math teacher with sterling credentials retires, there is rarely an outpouring of affection replete with a sold-out testimonial dinner, a scholarship in his or her name and standing ovations that rock the house. With certain coaches, however, it’s an entirely different matter. Tom Martinez is one of those notable exceptions. Nearly 300 of his former athletes, fellow coaches, family members and friends showed up to honor him Aug. 9 at the San Mateo Elks Lodge. They did so because Martinez, who taught physical education and coached at the College of San Mateo for the better part of four decades, is unique. At CSM, his detailed and demanding style produced 1,300 victories in football, women’s softball and women’s basketball. His teams never had a losing season, no matter their level of talent. It is legendary how hard he pushed his players and coaches. He was tough on everyone, especially himself. But it is a testament to his dedication, fairness and devotion to his profession when so many people he influenced returned to fete him at a time when his health is faltering. The Elks Lodge event, which was MC’d by San Mateo County Community College District Chancellor Ron Galatolo, lasted six hours. There were 29 speakers. It was a very long evening. In the end, it took its toll on the coach himself. Battling the effects of diabetes, heart and lung problems and other serious issues, he experienced a bout of dizziness as he wrapped up his remarks at about 11 p.m. He persisted and managed to finish his statement. It was a poignant performance and a reminder that we almost certainly won’t see the likes of him again.

In San Mateo County these days, there is nothing quite so out of place as a politician who opposes the notion of raising taxes _ and then acts on it. From Daly City south to the Palo Alto border, it is simply routine to listen to elected officials moan about the state of their budgets. Their solution, more often than not, is to propose some sort of new and creative tax hike, whether on commercial sales or on property. Not so Matt Grocott in San Carlos. He’s just feisty enough to say no. And, naturally, he is regarded as a Peninsula pariah for taking that stand. Branded as a lone wolf, an impediment, an obstacle to progress and what is purported to be “good government,” Grocott, a member of the San Carlos City Council, is bristling at a plan to take the easy path to a sales tax boost in that pleasant community. His four council peers reportedly prefer a ballot measure that would require a simple majority for passage, courtesy of the declaration of a “fiscal emergency.” Grocott, always eager to cut expenses in lieu of mandated revenue increases wherever possible, is holding out for a two-thirds threshold combined with appropriate and necessary economies. It is his view that passing taxes ought to be difficult. He’s not a happy camper right now. Then again, he is well known for bucking the tide, for refusing to be a yes man. He takes the consistent position that he represents the public, not the city staff, not the bureaucracy, not the labor unions, not the entrenched interests that dictate policies and practices all along the Peninsula. What a novel concept. Grocott is not going to win any popularity contests among his colleagues. He doesn’t seem to care. And maybe that’s a very good thing in this day and age.

Be careful what you wish for. Maybe that ought to be the mantra for those investigating the possibility of adding multi-story buildings in what are, essentially, small-town business districts. A number of San Mateo County suburbs are considering making that shift. Their argument can be compelling: Tall structures can include both commercial and residential components while increasing the tax base. All well and good, at least on paper. But, in reality, things don’t always work out as planned. Take Burlingame for example. There, a major debate on this issue is heating up. There is a very tentative proposal to permit certain areas of the hamlet’s downtown area to have buildings as high as 75 feet. That would be a significant and rather stark change for a century-old place that prides itself on its cozy, tree-lined atmosphere. Ironically, within a block of what is technically defined as downtown, a massive, eight-floor apartment building on El Camino Real a block from Chapin Avenue already appears to tower well over that height limit. It sticks out like a sore thumb. So do two old, smaller AT&T switching facilities masquerading as office buildings near the corner of Burlingame Avenue and El Camino Real. It is highly unlikely that either of those structures would be allowed today. The point is that, in spite of these obvious anomalies, tinkering with a thriving low-rise formula would be dicey. Towns like Burlingame (and Menlo Park, San Carlos, Millbrae, San Bruno, Half Moon Bay, etc.) have long tried to maintain a friendly village ambience based, in part, on maintaining a non-city look and feel. Isn’t that the point of the suburbs in the first place? People move to the Peninsula to escape life in the city, whether it’s San Francisco, San Jose or Oakland. Things tend to slow down a bit here. There is a certain undefined intimacy involved. Seven-story buildings, if they do come to pass in any great numbers in Burlingame, would alter that in fairly dramatic ways. The betting in this corner is that, in the end, they won’t see the light of day. The change would just be too much. Smaller will wind up being better. By the way, for further comparison, check out the closed Benjamin Franklin Hotel in downtown San Mateo. That building is eight stores tall, plus a penthouse. The shadow cast by that structure is considerable. Imagine that edifice in the middle of Burlingame Avenue. Ouch.

The latest statistics regarding high school dropouts from the state’s Department of Education were sobering to say the least. In San Mateo County, one of the most affluent areas in California, nearly one in six teens did not finish high school. The public high school dropout rate was highest among Latino and black youngsters, 24 percent and 36 percent respectively. It was lowest, 5 percent, among Asians. Pacific Islanders had a 21 percent failure rate; whites came in at 10 percent. Ethnic background was just one way to look at the depressing numbers. Economics was another. Generally speaking, students (or former students) tend to struggle in the classroom if they came from relatively poor or uneducated backgrounds. That’s not a new deduction. It’s been well-known for decades. Kids who come from families with academic backgrounds and who live in comfortable surroundings have a leg up in school. Test scores, college admissions and other results verify that thesis. In fact, an ex-University of California admissions officer, a San Mateo High School alum, once noted that one of the most accurate predictors of a successful application to UC was a young person’s ZIP code. Public high schools are always an easy target when the subject of academic failure is broached. You don’t hear much about the raw material, the individual kids and where they are coming from (or, for that matter, their elementary schools, or lack of same). An awful lot of them, especially those who eventually fail in the classroom, start out with their hands tied due to socio-economic and family issues. That doesn’t mean the schools can simply bail on these students. Not at all. But it does mean the challenge to educate them is much tougher. Talk to teachers about the many and varied differences involved in working with youngsters from Hillsborough and East Palo Alto. It’s not the same by any stretch of the imagination. For an instructor, it can be a stark case of apples and oranges. That’s the nature of public schools today in San Mateo County and in other parts of California as well. Like the rest of our society, we are being divided into the haves and the have-nots. And money, along with family education, has a great deal to do with that. It’s not fair. But no one ever said life was fair. Not even close to fair.

State Sen. Leland Yee is at it again. He has thrust himself into another dispute where his presence is, frankly, unnecessary, misguided and counter-productive. His latest foray involves a strike by members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees against the University of California’s system of taxpayer-funded schools. Yee, not surprisingly given his track record, has joined the picket lines to support the public employee union. But there’s a problem. The strike, as currently waged, is illegal. A Superior Court judge ordered AFSCME not to take the action. The union disagrees. Yee, in essence, is backing a move specifically prohibited by a court of law. Further, by taking sides in this matter, he is failing to represent taxpayers who foot the bills for the very same strikers who are flouting the court’s order. Yee, a Democrat whose district includes a portion of San Mateo County, is pandering to a special interest group at the expense of everyone else. His Peninsula constituents would be far better served if he played the role of a constructive mediator in this case. Instead, he has chosen to be a blatant partisan. As this spectacle has proceeded, Yee has damaged his own credibility. He should back off immediately. If his track record of behavior is any guide, the chances of that happening are slim and utterly non-existent.