Letter to the City Council, Sewer Rate Increase (submitted Monday, April 17)

Dear City Council,

Last week, in my capacity as a Public Works Commissioner, I voted against raising the sewage rate a flat 36%. I did this not because I do not recognize the need to overhaul the existing sewage plant, nor because I deny the need for additional revenue in order to do so. My position has been, and remains, that because the impact of those households with faulty lateral lines is much higher those of citizens who do maintain their pipes, taxes should reflect this fact.

Ideally, the flat tax of the city would be set higher than 36% with discounts offered to homeowners upon proof their lateral is not allowing excessive water intrusion. In addition, San Mateo should have replacement required at Point of Sale, or, at a bare minimum, an inspection report should be required. According to SAMCAR more than 1800 homes sold in San Mateo (1810, precisely) over the last three years, and each represented an opportunity to improve our sewage system for everyone.

Attached is a picture, taken this Saturday, of raw sewage and pieces of toilet paper pooled on the sidewalk a few houses down from where I live in Hayward Park.  This kind of overflow will not improve under the current Clean Water Program because its high level planning does not adequately address major upstream dysfunction such as failing laterals.

We cannot truly have a clean water system in San Mateo if faulty laterals are not replaced. I also believe providing a strong financial incentive (such as a tax penalty for faulty laterals or higher rates for those who cannot prove compliance) is the best means of achieving a fully updated and sealed system.

It pains me that the city is proposing to spend nearly a billion dollars without addressing failing laterals in any capacity. A holistic approach is required to have truly clean water (and sidewalks) in San Mateo.

Respectfully

Dear Planning Commission, Thank You

I came tonight to thank all the planning commissioners for their service. Though we may not always agree, I fully appreciate the time you dedicate to our city.

However, I am here in particularly to praise the three commissioners who voted against accepting the offer to rezone the Bridgepointe rink. I honestly don’t believe SPI would have issued its reversal without your firm stance. Sue Lempert called you heroes, and I believe she was right.

Faith in government is low right now in no small part to the belief that our representatives are not standing up for citizen’s rights and dignity when they are challenged by corporate entities. United Airlines recently provided us with a visual of what this sort of bullying can entail.

In February, I spoke against supporting the Bridgepointe package both from an ethical perspective and due to the fact allowing a buyout from the General Plan sets a bad precedent. I still think these are the most important reasons to have denied the rezoning. But even considering the matter from a purely monetary perspective, the numbers didn’t add up. A new rink would have cost upwards of 20 million not including the land. 8 million, the price of the sellout, was a small portion of the replacement cost.

Diane, Charlie, John – Thank you for not voting for less than we deserved. You told SPI to go back and bring San Mateo a better offer – and they did. Bravo…I am most grateful.