If you look on Zillow, the “park” (and I use the term loosely since it is a small hillside that is unlit and not landscaped and offers no real park benefit other than walking a dog or a gathering place for kids drinking and smoking) it shows that it is divided into 7 parcels. It completes Sequoia Court with r culdesac lots and adds 2 additional lots to Bay View Drive.

My guess is those lots could easily bring $700-$800,000 EACH.

Why do we need to hold onto them when they can be sold and more than solve the current deficit situation, PLUS generate much needed property tax revenue??

I think the only true opponents would be the residents on Sequoia Court.

I don’t see the harm of people wanting to discuss and debrief an election result the week after the vote. If that offends your sense of propriety surely there must be another discussion elsewhere on the web you can follow.

Regarding your comment “the people have spoken”, I think part of the problem in this state is that too often the people have spoken without understanding what it is they are speaking about. There is a point where Michael and I agree — look no further than the voters to understand why we have such high taxes in this state and such a fiscal crisis that results in the State taking money from cities and cities trying any revenue measures they can pass.

It’s the voters who passed Prop 13 and a series of propositions that mandated spending in this state. The result is that it’s nearly impossible for the state to both live within its means and deliver the services it should be — voters unwittingly limited property tax revenue while requiring a series of expenses.

I’m sure that wasn’t the intent at the time. But that’s precisely why it’s so critical to have this dialogue beyond the couple week build-up before elections — voters are dictating the financial health of our communities without fully understanding the true costs and benefits.

Yes, I am the Michael that you quoted. But by saying that it shouldn’t be coming out of our pocket is not saying I will not allow it to come out of my pocket.

I still don’t think this deficit should be paid by those of us that have been paying, in good faith, what we are asked to pay to keep our budget balanced. But I am also not irrational.

As I said, IF the city could have shown they had done all they can to make reasonable cuts, we would have no other rational choice than to kick in to keep our city running smoothly. I and many others still think there is more fat to cut and until we are shown that has been done, those of us voting against measure U will still not support additional money out of our pockets.

I did not move here because of hometown days, the farmers market, the youth center, et al. They may add flavor and “value” to San Carlos, but I think they are not attracting people here in droves; we all chose San Carlos for different reasons.

Look at Atherton and Hillsborough…what, other than their location and large homes do they, as a community, offer to their residents? Arguing that we need all of these events and programs to continue attracting people and supporting our property values is nebulous at best. I have discovered things as the months and years go by…I did not have a punch list before moving here of things to keep me entertained.

The phone surveys that were made beforehand to manipulate the constuction of this measure so that it had the best chance of passing were clearly flawed or they did not survey a good sample of voters.

People in sales at least will understand that a well-planned and supported presentation will result in a successful result. Politicians are inherently salespeople…but are they good salespeople? That remains to be seen.

Here’s what poster “Michael” said on the previous “Measure U” post:

“Just like the parcel tax it is not about the amount coming out of my pocket…it should not be coming out of my pocket.”

I have no way of knowing if you’re the same Michael or not — if you aren’t, my apologies. If you are, that quote pretty clearly communicates your voting intentions on a 0.25% proposal.

Regarding the flood of San Mateo customers who will be hitting our Home Depot, let’s do some quick math.
If gas is $3.00 a gallon and your car gets 30 miles / gallon (generous assumptions), it’ll cost you $0.10 a mile to drive. The average round trip from San Mateo to San Carlos is 10 miles, resulting in a $1.00 in incremental gas costs. With a .25% discount in sales tax, you would have to buy a $400 item to break even, and that’s presuming you don’t value your time at all and would prefer to go to a more inconvenient location to do your shopping.

The math just doesn’t add up. You have to start talking about big ticket items for the math to work, at which point other considerations (retail price, quality, selection, service etc.) are going to trump the sales tax issue. Again, this decision was not grounded in economic rationale of the impact of a 0.25% sales tax bump vs. a 0.50% sales tax bump. It was grounded in the dogma reflected in the “Michael” quote from the other forum, whether that’s you or not.