Are There Three Blind-Mice Candidates for City Council?
(Buy now, pay big later!)
After reading the statements and websites of the candidates running for the Belmont City Council, it seems that three of them are blindly, blithely and unconditionally endorsing CSUS' last proposal to build their satellite campus on Davis Drive. I say blindly because they are ignoring the reasons for the rejection of the CSUS proposal last year; in doing so, these candidates are endangering the long-term common good of Belmont residents in a Faustian deal to gain short-term benefits at the expense of long-term unacceptable costs.
Before I proceed with my explanation, even though I have been opposed to the CSUS proposal up until now, I and many others could be in favor of it if CSUS would address the issues that caused the proposal to be rejected last year. The candidates would not have to change their positions, but would have to insist that CSUS modify its offer from last year to complement Belmont's future, not compromise it.
Before any of the loyal opposition charges forward with any accusations, I am a pro-education and a youth-sports advocate. As a recipient of a full college scholarship, a college athlete, a Little League coach, a volunteer middle-school tutor locally and in Mexico, a Nature Education docent for kids' hikes at Filoli, and a taxpayer in Belmont for more than 40 years, my inclination is not to turn a blind or jaundiced eye to any proposal of CSUS.
However, I am compelled to think critically about the sometimes dire unintended consequences to Belmont by the actions of these candidates, including the incumbent, who blindly promote the acceptance without conditions of any CSUS proposal in the future. The one incumbent candidate actually voted last year for the CSUS flawed proposal. This is not leadership!
It seems that the candidates whose platform planks include the reversal of last year's rejection of CSUS' proposal by the City Council have adopted the Washington play-book tactic of pandering to the one-issue voters: the voters who hear about the possibility of a large payment and assume that their cause will be a recipient of this largesse; or the voters who want to alleviate the real shortage of athletic fields for local youths without critically thinking of the big-picture, long-term negative consequences to our City. How about CSUS funding a alternate full-time field for the Belmont youth?
I and many others who opposed the original CSUS proposal could become advocates for accepting a new proposal under the following conditions:
1. CSUS offers a solution to the burgeoning traffic problem on Ralston Avenue that will be exacerbated if their original proposal is implemented — a solution other then CSUS' lame offer to start classes 15 minutes earlier, which would just extend the Ralston Avenue congestion by15 minutes each morning. Also, rather than making a one-time contribution to another seemingly feckless traffic study, how about considering a CSUS bus to the campus from a collection area near Highway 280 or 92!
2. CSUS removes the potentially fatal financial ticking time bomb - the 2% annual increase cap to their payment in lieu of taxes. If inflation rises at a higher rate than 2% (as most experts expect), the cost to the City could eventually be greater then the CSUS payment, and the taxpayers would be stuck paying for CSUS, as well as losing tax revenue. This is potentially the most dangerous consequence of the CSUS proposal, and the cap should be the future contemporaneous rate of inflation. The proponents' argument that 2% is the amount of increases allowed under Prop 13 is not relevant because when private property is sold, the house and taxes are reassessed; CSUS will own the property and potentially be a financial burden, not a blessing, to the taxpayers of Belmont forever.
3. CSUS must supply a financially-secure secondary guarantor of the promised annual payment to the City of Belmont. Because CSUS is a tax-exempt private business that can declare bankruptcy or fail to pay their annual commitment, the City has no tax-lien recourse that it would have with a default by a tax-paying owner. For those who dismiss this possibility, remember the Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy in 2008.
4. CSUS chooses a less severe and a better environmentally-friendly plan to cut fewer mature trees on the Water Dog Canyon rim. Saplings are not replacements for mature trees for 50-100 years.
5. CSUS has responded somewhat satisfactorily to the noise level from their athletic field and pool during school days, however they need to submit a plan to enforce the noise-level restrictions during weekends – both noise-level and time restrictions.
Regarding the two new candidates who have stated their unconditional endorsement for the CSUS proposal: There are demeaning comments on the Internet characterizing one of these candidates as a "one trick pony....the CSUS howling dog," and the other as "either a Libertarian or was whacked in the head by an Ayn Rand book, somewhere along the line, wants to deregulate."
I would rather take a more direct approach and request that the candidates qualify their endorsements as conditional and not turn a blind eye to the interests of many of the residents and voters in Belmont. Or else, the critical-thinking voters will turn a blind eye to the candidates' names on the ballot.
Bear in mind that the position of these candidates who blindly embrace the acceptance of the CSUS proposal structured last year do so at the expense of the COMMON GOOD of all the residents of Belmont. The COMMON GOOD being "the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number of Belmont residents."
These three Belmont City Council candidates advocating unconditional surrender to a revenue-generating BUSINESS, such as CSUS, at the potential expense of all Belmont residents, is a strong reason to reject their candidacies at the polls. Unconditional surrender is for those who are on the losing side, but Belmont is dealing from a position of strength. It is high time that these three candidates realize this and reflect it in their campaign rhetoric.
Edited by Elaine Burns
