Measure O is flawed
By John Horgan
Saturday, May 24th, 2008 at 9:09 am in Uncategorized.
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.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
May 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Greetings & thank you for the opportunity to comment. In fact with rising fuel costs and childhood obesity (read, children who don’t get to just play outside & move their bodies) providing a dedicated funding source for our San Mateo County and county (cities, etc.) parks is exactly what we need! I have been fortunate to benefit from parks in San Mateo County virtually all of my 55 years, and can’t say enough about the healthful benefits. I can also personally attest to the deferred maintenance, need for restored ranger staff, etc. Without a dedicated funding source, too much energy must be spent by parents, community volunteers, organizations and others to “lobby” year in and year out for funding. Let’s bring San Mateo County in line with the majority of California counties by having dedicated parks funding. And by so doing, we’ll have a healthier and happier population that will have time - and energy - for addressing other legitimate concerns in our County.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:01 am
No one argues that parks and open space are not pleasant. But they aren’t top fiscal priorities in a county that has other, far more pressing needs, like health care for the poor and proper facilities for those being incarcerated. How do we fund those essentials? By special additions to the sales tax? San Mateo County is unique in that the vast bulk of our acreage is dedicated to parks, beaches and open space. No other urban or suburban California county has as much percentage-wise. It’s possible that we have dug ourselves an attractive hole that, now, we can’t deal with very well. Maybe it’s time to call a halt to the acquisition of more open space, handle what we’ve got and live within our means.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I agree. VOTE NO ON MEASURE O
Here are some facts:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is over funded already
* MROSD has $79.9M available to spend this year.
Where is this told to the public?
Why do they need more money?
Why isn’t this on their homepage by the donate button?
* MROSD’s website says MROSD has over 55,000 acres
MROSD has a history of lawsuits (against taxpayers)
* Many in the law community say MROSD is aggressive
Don’t support a bully
Is that helping the citizens who pay for MROSD?
MROSD has been known to do government intrusions into private neighborhoods
* Who likes government taking from citizens?
* Even if MROSD owns land to a parkland, MROSD has been known to go after a private neighborhood who paid for their own roads without government money. Is that fair?
http://www.openspacefacts.com
May 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Now that you bring it up, the huge open space district is indeed the elephant in the studio apartment. Its influence over both geography and politics in San Mateo County is over-arching and quite expensive. Measure O would continue to feed that ravenous entity. It’s just one reason, among many, to put the sales tax increase out to pasture where it belongs.