It sounds simply too good to pass up, almost like free money. Measure O on the June 3 ballot in San Mateo County, if approved by two-thirds of the voters, would raise the local sales tax by 0.125 percent to a total of 8.375. Not a whole lot if you look at it in isolation. The extra money, perhaps as much as $16 million annually, would be used to care for parks, open space and recreation programs throughout the county. Some of the cash could even be utilized to purchase more open space in a county where 75 percent of the total land available is already protected from development. Measure O, though, is deceptive, much as the campaign to pass it has been. The impetus for it has come from county open space advocates, not from the area’s 20 cities. Municipalities were brought into the mix to try to broaden the county’s own appeal. There is no parks and recreation crisis in most, if any, cities in the county. But, to listen to county Measure O spokesmen you would think our parks and rec programs are in a state of utter collapse. At least that’s the dire message being promoted. And it’s just not true. The county’s vast network of parks and open space may be another story. It embraces thousands of acres of prime land and waterfront. This requires upkeep and care but the sprawling system is not a high priority in a county budget that approaches $1.7 billion. County supervisors rarely mention it when they discuss their top fiscal responsibilities, such as health care for the indigent and uninsured and the criminal justice system. So county parks boosters tout their optional, though very attractive, amenity as a vital resource that must have its own dedicated income stream to survive. Hence Measure O. An identical proposal was shot down by the electorate 18 months ago. It didn’t come close to passage. With prices on consumer goods, including fuel, rising, the timing of Measure O could not be worse. This is a flawed plan that has already been decided by the people.

In one sense, Bill Neukom is coming home. He’s going to be the new managing general partner of the San Francisco Giants when Peter Magowan retires from that post later this year. Neukom, who has worked as an attorney in the Seattle area for 40 years, is from San Mateo. He grew up on Warren Road in San Mateo Park and graduated from nearby San Mateo High School in the late 1950s. It was a good time to be a kid on the Peninsula. Neukom, a tall, lanky fellow, was part of an informal gaggle of male teens who hung out at South Hillsborough School during the summer months. It was there, on the rudimentary outdoor basketball court at the school, where the Hillsborough Athletic Club was formed. To be honest, the HAC was a club in name only. But it was a lofty label you could use to tell your parents where you were going on a hot July evening. When it got dark, games were illuminated by the lights from parked cars. An entire generation of mid-Peninsula prep basketball players tested themselves at the HAC. The names go on and on: Mike Toomey, Phil Rognier, John Egenolf, Terry Curley, Gene Chaput, Dale “Driller” Miller, Pete Carboni, Sil Vial, Geoff Smith, Ed Shuler, Mike Zocchi, Doug Kast, a guy who called himself “San Jose” and a host of others. Neukom was part of it. He just happened to be a bit sharper than the rest of us. He had a wider world-view. He left San Mateo County to attend Dartmouth College in New England. He returned and graduated from Stanford Law School. By the late 1960s, he was in the state of Washington and his legal career was taking off. The rest, as they say, is history. As for the HAC, well, it’s long-gone. So is that asphalt outdoor basketball court at South Hillsborough School.

Thirty years after California (and San Mateo County) voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13, the landmark property tax initiative, its significant after-effects continue to linger. One of those consequences can be found in Burlingame, where the average price of a single-family residence has topped the $1 million mark. Burlingame, in spite of its seeming affluence, is in something of a financial pickle. The town needs to spend at least $39 million to upgrade its aging storm drain system. It tried to get a bond issue passed and failed. The measure went down to defeat due, in part, to stiff resistance from people who bought their homes relatively recently and are being taxed at close to full market value. Meanwhile, long-term residents receive the benefit of Prop. 13’s tough restrictions on annual tax hikes. The argument of the newcomers is that they would pay much more for that proposed bond. Now, Burlingame authorities are taking another look at how to pay for those needed infrastructure improvements. And the question is: Will they bow to the howls of the minority and seek a funding mechanism that requires only a simple majority vote for approval and spreads the burden more evenly or will they go back to the electorate again with a more traditional bond that has a mandatory two-thirds threshold along with the Prop. 13 wrinkle? No one will be surprised if it’s the former route.