|
Why I like Measure E
I spent the best part of my life before retirement as a newspaper ad man.
It's an honorable profession. So I intend a compliment to the Tribune's
"junior" columnist, John Maybury, when I say he'd have made a good ad man.
He quite accurately quoted me last week while very possibly leading his
readers to the wrong conclusion. I said Measure E would be defeated. John
opposes "E". His "advertising" spin might have led you to believe I agree
with him. To the contrary, I voted for Measure E. I hope Measure E passes
overwhelmingly. I like most aspects of Measure E, especially the housing,
which will be far, far more beneficial to Pacifica's finances (because it
will be in a Redevelopment Area) than if those 315 units, including the
scores to be located above commercial shops and offices, were to be
scattered all over town.
It benefits every Pacifican when full market value property taxes on new
homes are added to the total income of our city.
My house generates taxes only about one-eighth to one-tenth of those that
come from recent resales or new construction of similar properties. Many
who loudly complain about lack of affordable housing for teachers, police
and firefighters, would be the first to object if we built truly affordable
housing. Logically, we might build 500 cottages, each on a 25x75 foot lot,
say on the lower flanks of Cattle Hill. They might be 500 square feet each
with two foot sideyards. Such homes might sell for, perhaps, $150,000 each.
Those who really don't want houses to be affordable would use the
pejorative term "substandard" instead of objective terms such as compact,
small, or even "petite." My Dad built a 400 square foot home in 1940. We
were proud of his work, which served the needs of our family. We lived
there two years, rented it out for another two years, then sold it,
recovering twice the full cost of building the place. Not every teacher's
family needs a 5000 square foot lot, large home, and enclosed garage.
My voted absentee ballot was returned to the county election department
last Saturday. While I'm a native speaker of English, I believe those
American citizens more comfortable in Spanish or Chinese should be able to
vote in a language in which they feel comfortable. The federal government
has ordered San Mateo County to prepare a ballot which can be used in an
equal fashion by readers of English, Spanish or Chinese. Don't blame the
folks who put on elections in this county if you're uncomfortable with the
densely packed, multi-language ballot that resulted. Blame the Feds.
Pacifica uses ballot style 57 (one of 84 different styles needed within the
county). It has six sides printed on three long ballot cards of index
stock.
As a Democrat I'm tempted to blame the ruling minority junta for this
unnecessary complication to our lives. However, the law was around for
quite a few years and several administrations before it jabbed our county
in the backside last July. I might be proven wrong, but I've heard
absolutely no demand for this costly innovation from the voters of the
county. I've been in precincts from East Palo Alto to Portola Valley. Not
once have I met a frustrated would-be voter who needed a ballot in Chinese.
I do believe reasonable people can differ, and I'm prepared to be proved
wrong. I don't expect to be. If you are, or know of, any American citizen
living in San Mateo County who feels the new three card ballot makes it
easier for him or her to exercise an intelligent vote, let me know.
E mail the Reactor at Paul@thereactor.net.
Check his website at www.thereactor.net.
|
