October 24, 2001

Two slam dunks, one not so easy

There's an election coming up, as you may have heard. It happens Nov. 6. Only in Brisbane's three precincts are they using both sides of the ballot. Brisbane's been pushed into a version of horse and rabbit stew. You know. "Take one horse and one rabbitÉ" In this case some people in San Francisco, population more than 700,000, legally need a second municipality to help create a municipal utility district. They picked Brisbane, population well under 4000, to be their patsy. Brisbane is voting for candidates in all five wards of the new district, and also voting whether to form said district. Of course Brisbane may vote 100 percent against and would still become part of it. It's easier for a horse to stomp a rabbit than a rabbit to stomp a horse.

This particular event is known as the UDEL. It's a "Uniform District Election." A number of cities, school districts, water, fire protection, and sanitary districts are electing leaders. Except for the county-wide community college board election, only one precinct in Pacifica will vote for school board trustees. 22 measures are on the ballot in various parts of the county. Several, including a county wide measure even Pacificans will vote on, hope to ratify hotel/motel taxes that have been on the books for years. It's a slam dunk. Vote Yes on San Mateo County Measure B. A yes vote doesn't change anything we're doing now, but voting it down would mean the county would lose an excellent source of funds and either cut services or be forced to raise taxes some other way guaranteed to be more painful. Measure C is the Community College bond measure. Another slam dunk. Voting Yes demonstrates your intelligence, your concern for education in this county, and your willingness to invest in the future of a lot of local kids. Skyline, CSM and Ca–ada are major assets to this county. Skyline, in particular, is right on the edge of Pacifica. It's our closest local college.

Measure A would combine Sheriff and Coroner into one elective office. It's not as simple as B and C. When I told some opponents of Measure A reasonable people might vote either way, they thought I was saying I'd vote Yes. Perhaps that's the way I'll vote, but I don't feel certain enough to recommend you necessarily follow my lead. Look it over carefully. I do know now is the best time to combine these offices, if they should be combined at all. The acting coroner favors the measure. The personality of the previous Coroner is not an issue, since he's died. No need to vote one way out of sympathy for him, or another way out of dislike.

The opponents of measure A may have convinced me to vote Yes. They ran a newspaper ad. It contained a number of typos, even misspelling the names of several of their friends. Is this trivial? I don't think so. If you can't take the trouble to spell your friends' names right, will you take the trouble to use valid arguments? It's careless. It reflects on their entire campaign. Perhaps those whose names were misspelled are forgiving. I'm not. I think it's a good reason for voting Yes. A carefully thought-out, well-planned ad, with the name of every endorser double-checked and correct, would be appreciated. On the other hand, the supporters of measure A also had one serious misspelling in their mailing piece. The opponents ad was by far the sloppier, however.

If you wish, you can send Paul Azevedo e-mail at Paul@thereactor.net or check his website at http://www.thereactor.net.