Bill Walsh, whose death at age 75 was announced Monday, was more than a Hall of Fame football coach. The longtime Woodside resident was a friend and mentor to an entire generation of coaches (of a variety of sports), teachers, business professionals and others who dealt with people. Walsh was a master motivator and communicator. He was gifted in that regard. He understood people far better than most in his chosen field of endeavor. The College of San Mateo alum _ he played football there in the early 1950s _ developed a knack for getting the best out of his players, assistant coaches and even front office types during his highly productive years with the Forty Niners. His innovative influence spread far beyond the football field, however. He was in demand as a public speaker. Corporations understood Walsh’s gifts. Extremely bright and articulate and blessed with a sense of humor, often self-deprecating, he could get his critical points across succinctly and without crushing the spirit of the intended target, or targets, of his focused comments. That came in especially handy during his career in the National Football League, where ego and big money tend to dominate. But the NFL was just a part of his legacy. His influence stretched far beyond that realm. Walsh will be missed by just about everyone who came in touch with him. There probably won’t be another like him for a very long time.

People of faith have a problem. And so does anyone else who cares. A number of mainline churches, especially those of the Catholic and Protestant persuasion, are pursuing a policy that is directly at odds with a significant portion of the American citizenry. The churches’ advocacy of the so-called sanctuary movement is nothing more than an outright slap in the face to U.S. taxpayers. San Mateo County has its own version of this syndrome. Pressure on local authorities to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials is growing. Church people and other activists are in the vanguard of this misguided effort. By offering illegal immigrants in danger of deportation protection and assistance, the churches are not just flouting the law. They are putting society at risk. And that includes immigrant communities. Those targeted for deportation are in serious violation of immigration rules. Often, their related offenses are criminal in nature. So what we have are churches attempting to give aid and comfort to individuals who, in some cases, are potentially dangerous. One argument is that deportation would separate families. Not so. Their families can return to their countries of origin with them. It’s a matter of choice, right from the moment the illegal immigrant decided to come to these shores. At some point, the impact of illegal immigration on the county’s systems of public education, health care, social services and law enforcement is going to hit critical mass. The sanctuary movement is helping to hasten that day. If the churches want open borders, no rules and absolute carte blanche for any and all unfortunates from all over the world, so be it. They just should get it all out on the table and admit it.

Call it the Curse of the Pricey Peninsula Palace. We see a lot of that in San Mateo County where million-dollar residences are often the norm today. Burlingame is a case in point. Over the past 15 years or so, that town’s property values have soared. A home worth $1 million is just about average, even accounting for condominiums. Folks who bought those high-priced dwellings relatively recently pay much higher property taxes than longtime residents due to the tenets of Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 California tax relief measure. Some of those newcomers fought a city proposal to approve a bond to upgrade the municipal storm drain system last year. Their reasoning was that they would have to pay a disproportionate share of the tax, based on assessed valuation of their properties. They were right, of course. Now, the town’s public school district is considering much the same thing. A construction bond measure might be on the November ballot. Currently, Burlingame properties are being taxed at $55 per $100,000 of assessed value to support six public education bonds, two each by the elementary district, the San Mateo Union High School District and the County Community College District. Which means that the owner of $1 million house is shelling out $550 _ plus another $180 for a separate elementary district parcel tax. A third elementary bond could add between $30 and $50 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to that hefty bill. The owner of a home assessed at the $1 million mark would see his or her public school tax tab rise by something in the range of $300 to $500. No wonder those recent homebuyers have had some qualms.

It’s time to put up or shut up. We are referring, of course, to the folks who continue to lobby against any further development of the Bay Meadows property in San Mateo. They have another opportunity to address their issue on an election ballot. Two city council seats will be on the ballot in November. The question is: Will a firm, outspoken opponent (or two) of the Bay Meadows plan seek office? Two years ago, no such individuals were on the official ballot when other council chairs were decided. At the eleventh hour, two anti-growth people tried to run as write-in candidates but they were dismal failures, as anticipated. The Bay Meadows issue has never been put to a vote of the people in any meaningful way. An effort to force a referendum failed due to a lack of valid and substantiated support. Legal efforts to do so also fizzled. If there really is wide-spread opposition to development of the rest of the race track, the upcoming council election would be a logical way to make that clear. One challenger to incumbents Jack Matthews and John Lee has emerged. Bertha Sanchez, a former member of the city’s planning commission, has declared her intention to run. She is a professed foe of the Bay Meadows plan. Still, when she had a chance to vote up or down on the Bay Meadows development, she did neither. She abstained.

So now it’s somebody else’s fault. That’s the sorry message coming from trustees in the troubled San Mateo Union High School District. With their budgetary practices under fire, they are attempting to focus criticism on a previous business manager, Bob Arnold. Interesting. Just for the record, Arnold, on occasion, did point out that a deficit budget was on the horizon. Did the trustees act accordingly? No. They went ahead and gave the document the OK in spite of the numbers staring at them. Did Arnold stand up, stomp his feet and demand that the board members cut expenditures immediately to balance the fiscal plan? No. But the trustees knew they were getting into a potentially dangerous monetary situation. And they went ahead anyway. Blaming Arnold or ex-superintendent Sam Johnson is par for the course, of course. But none of us should be deceived. The buck stops with the trustees. They did not exercise fiduciary prudence. In the end, they are responsible. Arnold and Johnson are history. The blame game has begun. But it won’t wash. The trustees can’t skirt around the truth, no matter how much they’d like to.