At the last vote for the parcel tax, the council promised that if it wasn't needed, it would be rebated. This is clearly not happening. The opponents accurately predicted that the city manager would find ways to spend whatever extra money was garnered. That's just the way things tend to work. I guess an obvious question is what did the council members, Lewis, Degolia, mean when they promised to rebate monies that were needed? What would it possibly take for this rebate to occur?

Next go around, I predict there will be substantial opposition to the parcel tax. On top of that, add the bond and extra taxes Lewis and Degolia want to sneak in to pay for the town center because their friends are not coming up with the private donations.

Got money in your pocket burning a hole.
Gotta spend it.

I suggest we add a police officer.

Memberone said "I suggest we add a police officer".

Only if he/she is dedicated to ECR to catch the wanton speeders; drivers under the influence; texters; and the gee whiz I forgot how to use my turn signal drivers.

You've got enough cops protecting Athertonians from the influences of the 99.9%.

That money could also be used for pedestrian and byciclist safety on ECR.

The meeting I attended on the parcel tax discussed a wide range of options for the parcel tax. I do not recall any promise to rebate although it may have been one of the many possibilities dispatched.

Sneaky is one of the last descriptions of Mr. De Golia that should be used. I prefer hard working, honest, old fashioned gentleman a rare but appreciated councilman. Also I have always voted for Elizabeth Lewis & have admired her patience for years.

Also a note for whatever, it's 91.3%

> The town must start building up money
> to pay for major upcoming expenses,
> Mr. Wiest said, such as the town's
> drainage system. Otherwise, he said,
> "we can continue to look the other way
> and watch the (Marsh Road drainage)
> channel fall in on itself."

THIS. Mr. Wiest is absolutely right.

I remember clearly what the drainage channel looked like during our last wet winter; it was right on the brink of overflowing its banks, flooding nearby homes, Holbrook-Palmer Park and critical roads such as Marsh, Middlefield (this happened anyways) and El Camino.

Given our drought, it's easy to forget or de-prioritize storm drainage, but we urgently need to increase the capacity of the channel. Droughts don't last forever. Times of prosperity are the best times to plan for the worst.

I'm onboard with making efforts to keep the channel improvements aesthetically pleasing, but this work needs to begin YESTERDAY.

The drainage is a necessity. The new town center is a necessity. Having lavish offices and gymnasiums in the new town center is a necessity. Having a cafe built as part of the town center, providing subsidized lunches and snacks to Atherton police, is a necessity. Paying Atherton police at the top salary of anywhere in California is a necessity. The list goes on and on…

That's why Ms. McNertney remembers a rebate (or refraining from levying) the parcel tax was "one of the many possibilities dispatched." You see, at the time, Atherton own finance committee concluded that it was not necessary to levy the parcel tax. In response, Wiest, Lewis and Degolia said no problem, if that turns out to be the case, we just won't levy it.

Are they doing this now? NO. The opponents accurately predicted that once this money was collected, it would never be returned. This article outlines conditions for which if the parcel tax is not rebated, it will never be. One-time multi-million dollar surpluses. This council is not even saying they'll rebate it this year, to coincide with the one-time credits.

Now, would the "honest, old fashioned gentleman" Mr. Degolia please comment on what the level of private donations have been for the town center, and whether he said at a recent council meeting that it was "ALWAYS" the intention to have the voters fill in the gap for donation shortfalls through the issuance of a bond?

> The drainage is a necessity.

Yes.

> The new town center is a necessity.
> Having lavish offices and gymnasiums
> in the new town center is a necessity.
> Having a cafe built as part of the
> town center, providing subsidized
> lunches and snacks to Atherton police,
> is a necessity. Paying Atherton police
> at the top salary of anywhere in
> California is a necessity. The list
> goes on and on…

Including drainage in that list does not do justice to the urgency of flood prevention. People die in floods. Homes are destroyed in floods. Nobody dies from lack of easy access to a latte.

I voted against the parcel tax and even agree with you that there should be a rebate if that was promoted as part of the intent of the parcel tax.

But the storm channel improvements have no dependency on whether there is or isn't a tax rebate. One has nothing to do with the other.

I actually agree that monies should be set aside to deal with the drainage. I was using this as an example to show every expense, whether critical or not, is lumped into "we've got to do it," and monies will be spent by government if governments are given money. The point is a rebate can occur, and drainage can be dealt with. Funds are available to do both. I don't want the drainage, although a legitimate issue, to become a rallying cry for why no rebate should be given.

DeGolia is finding out that Atherton residents are more frugal than he figured them for. That's why no private donations for the town center have been materializing.

The same dynamic is going to play out when he and Lewis and Wiest try to renew the parcel tax. There will be substantial organized opposition. They won't be able to slip anything by like last time.

This sad history of reneging on commitments to rebate the parcel tax will of course be brought up at that time.