.

Letter to the Editor: A Divided Electorate

Piedmont resident Ralph Catalano writes about why he feels two decades of relative harmony have given way to divisiveness in civic affairs.

Editor:

Organized opposition to Piedmont’s parcel tax makes it very clear that the City Council presides over a divided electorate. This divide opened only in the last 5 years after two decades of relative harmony. Why? Because many Piedmonters believe that the Council majority allocates benefits to friends at the expense of the rest of the community.

Under circumstances still unexplained, the Council provided utility undergrounding to the city’s most exclusive neighborhood at a cost of $2.3 million paid by the remainder of Piedmonters. The Council also gave a $2 million subsidy to sports lobbies by building a soccer complex at Havens School, paying consulting and legal fees for a private scheme to build another soccer complex in Moraga Canyon, and assuming responsibility for a swim facility. And city staff, despite the recession, continued to enjoy benefit packages that two Council-appointed committees reported we could not afford.

Mere profligacy might not have evoked organized opposition, but resistance emerged when the Council majority began using its privileged position to punish those who questioned pork barrel politics. The Council spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars for lawsuits to intimidate homeowners who resisted utility undergrounding. Council members used their access to the local newspaper to attack citizens who dared criticize subsidies to sports lobbies, and to chastise voters who spoke out against the failed sewer surtax.

Now this abusive and divisive Council wants 66% of Piedmont voters to extend the city parcel tax. The Council, however, continues to give voters new reasons to reject the tax. The Council majority allowed those who wrote the ballot argument in favor of the tax to falsely claim that the Council unanimously endorsed the tax. Council members have kept opponents of the tax from speaking at Council meetings, resumed attacking critics in public fora, and tried to extort support by threatening to cut police and fire services if the tax fails. The Council shamelessly persists in this extortion despite the fact that proceeds from the tax since the last extension have gone for undergrounding utilities in our wealthiest neighborhood, subsidizing private sports clubs, and pursuing vicious legal action against homeowners.

The Piedmont City Council, in short, continues to behave in ways that make it unfit to manage the proceeds of a voluntary surtax. Those proceeds have become nothing more than a “slush fund” used to reward friends and punish critics. The residents of Piedmont deserve better governance and should withhold this tax until we get it.

Ralph Catalano
Piedmont

Editor's note: Letters to the editor are published at the discretion of Piedmont Patch's editor in accordance with the site's Terms of Use. If you have a letter you would like to have considered for publication, please e-mail it to dixie.jordan@patch.com. Letters should be no longer than 600 words and will not be posted anonymously. Please include a daytime phone number with your email in case we need to contact you for verification or questions. Your phone number will not be published.

Don't miss a day of Piedmont news, opinion and events. Sign up for the Piedmont Patch e-newsletter here. And 'like' us on Facebook!

Stephanie Dang November 06, 2012 at 07:40 PM
While like all people, I don't doubt that our City Council has made mistakes. But I am extremely disappointed in people who cannot see the benefits of the terrific public services and public recreation spaces we have in Piedmont. Just because you as individuals do not use these facilities, can you not recognize that what benefits the community and improves the quality of life for our citizens, whether they are like you or not, benefits you too? We all pay a premium to live in Piedmont for the quality of life it provides. Open your eyes and look at what it would be like if you lived instead in Oakland. You could have the same type of beautiful house, but not feel safe in it because the criminals know the Oakland Police will not respond to anything other than murders. And just because you may belong to a private club with a swimming pool, as I do, can you not understand the benefit to having a pool available to everyone in our community? I can.
Rick Schiller November 06, 2012 at 07:52 PM
As Mayor Chiang was cited in the Oct. 18 Piedmonter, should Measure Y fail “public safety services will be preserved.” The loss of essential public safety services is an illogical proponent scare tactic first used by some on Council but now admitted false by Mr. Chiang. We will still be safer in Piedmont than Oakland. A recent letter by Vice-Mayor Fujioka states the pool is now revenue positive; obviously failure of Measure Y cannot affect the public pool as it can operate without a taxpayer subsidy.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something