Town Square

Post a New Topic

Arguments filed for and against Atherton parcel tax measure

Original post made on Aug 22, 2017

Arguments for and against the renewal of Atherton's parcel tax, which will be on the Nov. 7 ballot, have been filed. The pro argument is signed by all five City Council members; the opposition argument is signed by Jim Massey, Charles Ramorino and Sandy Crittenden.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, August 22, 2017, 9:49 AM

Comments (33)

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 22, 2017 at 1:50 pm

Pro argument: "Every year Council has the option to reduce the tax amount based on review of expenditures and available revenues."

That's what they said last time. If it isn't needed, it would be abated. Despite large surpluses, this promise WAS NOT KEPT.

They are NEVER going to say it's not needed, no matter what. Latest is it's needed because the surplus funds are required to pay for the gazillion dollar new Town Center (and estimates increasing all the time).

Easy NO vote on this one.

Posted by annoyed
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Aug 22, 2017 at 3:45 pm

This abuse of a taxation that should have ended years ago. To justify additional taxing of already over taxed residents is just greed, pure and simple. The town does not need a ridiculously expensive brand new ostentatious town center or a brand new police station. If they are so fiscally responsible, they would hand over police services to the Sheriff. Woodside, Ladera Oaks, Portola Valley, Uninc. Menlo Park, San Carlos, Half Moon Bay, and Millbrae all receive terrific service from the Sheriff. This would result in paying out a fraction of what it costs to maintain this little teeny police force. Just this alone would save MILLIONS of dollars annually. Enough with the waste!

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 22, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I would like to see Atherton adopt a system that would allow property owners who have low property values because of Prop 13 And who also have the financial capacity to do so to make supplementary contributions to the Town.

Posted by annoyed
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Aug 22, 2017 at 6:39 pm

You start Peter...give your hard earned money to the Town...we are waiting

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 22, 2017 at 7:00 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I have already done so.

Posted by Skeptic
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Aug 22, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Peter, the Town already tried your plan. It failed. It was called raising money for the Town Center.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 22, 2017 at 8:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Supporting a specific project is different than supporting our local government.

I make voluntary contributions to a number of quality newspapers not to support individual articles but because I believe that high quality journalism is vital to a democracy.

I support the Washington Post's new motto " Democracy dies in darkness".

Posted by Apple
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 22, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Atherton has information on its website on how to donate to the town.
Web Link

It's a bit long winded, but the short version is benefactors should contact the town manager with interest in donating.

Posted by informed
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Aug 23, 2017 at 4:34 pm

If the average person did the math, they would realize how ridiculous this Town imposed tax is! All one has to do is look up "transparent California" type or scroll to Atherton and see what the salary and benefit package the town is paying them. The average with total salary and benefits for a line level cop is $253,640.22!!! This is a massive sham. It is not like they do a whole lot! I was talking to one who transferred in from SJPD to ride out the remainder of his career,and he laughed and told me he had not seen a "real crime" since he was hired. Literally skipping to the bank. This is waste. This is outrageous. If the town outsourced services as suggested above, this would be extremely prudent and would stop the incessant begging for handouts from the residents! Do the math people! We are being unfairly taxed for services that are just not worth the cost. OUTSOURCE and vote NO!!!!!

Posted by Apple
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 24, 2017 at 4:05 pm


"The average with total salary and benefits for a line level cop is $253,640.22!!!"

You mean the highest paid Atherton police employee received $253,640.22, not the average.
Web Link

The sheriff's office is actually more expensive with the highest paid employee receiving $524K.
Web Link

I have to scroll through pages and pages until I can find a sheriff's officer paid less than Atherton's highest paid officer.

Any public safety consolidation savings with the county is quickly eaten up and then some by how high sheriff employees are paid. The only way outsourcing saves money is to lower the service quality level.

That means less patrol, higher response times, fewer public safety resources investigating Atherton crimes, etc. You can probably say goodbye to alarm monitoring, vacation checks, and other personalized services.

All this translates to less crime deterrence. Higher police presence is expensive, but it does deter crime. That is why there is so little "real crime" in Atherton, even though we're right next to communities that experience higher crime rates and more serious crimes in Redwood City, North Fair Oaks, and Menlo Park.

The real question Athertonians should be asking is what police service level do they want. If they want lower levels and lower taxes, they can vote No. If they like the current levels and taxation level, vote Yes.

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 24, 2017 at 4:22 pm

Apple, the conclusions of your analysis are incorrect. True, the sheriff's office has some officers making more, but even if all the officers made more, most of the cost savings of outsourcing Atherton's PD would go into not having to recreate redundant functions like dispatch, management, etc.

The "you'll get lower quality and higher response time with outsourcing" argument is also a fallacy. You can ask anyone in Woodside or Portola Valley about that. It's just not true.

But the parcel tax is not a referendum on outsourcing or keeping a police department. The town has enough surplus to keep the PD without a parcel tax. When you start adding a $60M+ town center on top of that, mainly for the police, including a fully equipped first-class gym for the police, the question is at what point is the camel's back going to break. We shall see.

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 24, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Also, Apple, you are comparing the Sheriff of a county ($524K; too much, I agree) with a police sergeant in Atherton ($253K). Not a fair comparison.

Posted by informed
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Aug 24, 2017 at 5:06 pm


You are absolutely wrong! That salary I picked was a line level cop! This does not include Sergeant, administration etc. If you did the research and understood what Half Moon Bay, San Carlos, and Millbrae saved by outsourcing police services, it is astounding! Dispatch, patrol and all equipment, workmans comp costs and on and on are all eliminated. Response time...a total non issue as the contract would require a Sheriff unit be in town 24/7. Please. Not to mention the vast experience the average deputy has compared to the atherton cop who has never even been to a major crime or incident. The resources the Sheriff has makes little teeny Atherton pale! Hanging onto this expensive security blanket is just fiscally irresponsible! No police building to maintain (sub station a couple of blocks from the town border) either. MILLIONS and MILLIONS saved.

Posted by informed
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Aug 24, 2017 at 5:29 pm

Just in 2017, the police budget was raised by almost a half a million dollars from 2016. 350K of this was just to pay OVERTIME to police. They paid out 400 plus Thousand dollars just in CAL PERS payments. Now...they expect the voters to pass ANOTHER special tax for which 90% of that tax goes to the police. This makes NO sense! If they have a budget, they obviously just continue to raise the ceiling every year. This is a little tiny police of less than 21 people. The money saved by saying NO to the special tax and eliminating all the money for this department would be huge. The costs associated with training, vehicles, salary/benefits and retirement are massive! Without this huge part of the budget pinned for the police dept roads would be paved every year, the town would have a ton of money and not have to beg for the citizens to fork over even more than they already pay! Look at the budget, look at transparent CA and look at the Special tax...NO NO NO! Enough with this waste and bilking of citizens.

Posted by Annoyed
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Aug 24, 2017 at 5:37 pm

All of the above is true and very very shameful! I also researched the budget and this site for transparency. Another little tidbit the public is very likely NOT aware of...Atherton retirees get FREE medical, dental and vision coverage for life. How many of you get that little perk after you retire...and all age the age of 50 and on top of your generous retirement monthly check. This must stop. This sleight of hand fraud by the town is just wrong. All paid for by us...the taxpayers. This "Special Tax" is only "Special" for the recipient...not for those forced to pay it. I am DONE! NO on the Special Tax. Let the town outsource services as they should have since the 1990's. No need for an extra tax then!

Posted by Fed up!!!
a resident of Atherton: Lloyden Park
on Aug 24, 2017 at 9:16 pm

I am fed up with citizens of the wealthiest community on the planet complaining about a $750 parcel tax that they spend on a dinner or spa treatment. This amount of money means nothing to Atherton residents, but how petty can they be about not wanting Police Officers to be able to earn a living wage or health benefits??? When they're risking their lives every day to protect residents!!

The compensation of our Officers is based on what other communities here pay. If anything, they are underpaid.

Not to mention twice in a row now the city manager has refused to promote from within with very qualified internal candidates for Chief. No advancement opportunities make for low morale.

99.9% of Atherton residents are very satisfied with the Police Department and the surveys have fully proven this. This is just sour grapes by a few people. We know who they are.

Posted by Amazed
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 12:38 am

This is hilarious! This is not about the dollar amount! This is about waste and taxation abuse. This is about principal! Laughing hysterically "they risk their lives" doing what??? Turning off sprinklers, picking up newspapers or no call too small???? Please!!!! Any agency on the peninsula can take this agency over and not sweat a drop. This is about a stupid tax veiled with the threat of losing police services. Ridiculous. Easy vote for me and most of my neighbors! NO...oh yes...we would all like to know who got polled??? 99.9% approval???? I never got a survey and nobody I know did either. Another example of the crookedness of this town government to get what they want.

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 8:42 am

A sheriff position (line level) is a deputy. Looking at Transparent California for Deputy in San Mateo County for 2016 reveals that the highest paid deputy for that year had a base salary $124k, overtime of $109k, plus other for a total pay of $245k, plus benefits of $108k, for a total pay of $354k. The lowest Deputy paid in 2016 had a base salary of $110k, overtime of $79k, plus other for a total pay of $208k, plus benefits of $104k for a total pay of $312k. That was the lowest in 2016.

Web Link

An officer position (line level) in Atherton. Looking at the same records for 2016 reveals that the highest paid officer for that year had a base salary of $112k, overtime of $73k, plus other at $39k for a total pay of $224k, plus benefits of $29k for a total pay of $253k. The lowest paid officer in 2016 had a base salary of (full year) of $107k, overtime of $1k, plus other of $30k for a total pay of $139k, plus benefits of $16k for a total pay of $155k.

Web Link

How much a particular deputy or officer receives in any given year for overtime is a function of deployment needs and staffing. If the department is understaffed, more overtime. If the department has required training or significant response incidents in the field, more overtime.

The current memorandum of understanding listed on the town's website shows the retirement healthcare benefit was eliminated for any person hired after 2013. From my read of the officers, most of the current police officers were hired after that date - each of these must pay their own healthcare premiums into retirement. In addition, the benefit is not free healthcare but is percentage-based depending on years of service and retirement from the town up to a maximum of 90% of the identified premium after 20 years of service - healthcare only, not vision and dental.

Web Link

Posted by Here are some facts
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 9:39 am

First, “Fed Up”’s comments give me the notion that if I’m wealthy, it’s okay to take advantage of me. I don’t think it is. It reminds me of arguments akin to “if you’re __________, you can’t be discriminated against.” Let’s leave those type of arguments out of this discussion because they are meaningless.

Second, I agree with both “Facts please” and “Too Rich”. The overwhelming savings by outsourcing would be by eliminating redundant functions.

Finally, here’s another fact. The decision about whether or not to keep the PD internal or outsourced cannot be made purely by spreadsheets. There are intangible factors like “concierge” service, etc. But at least to me, where it starts to get very cloudy is when the police union funds council candidates who then vote on compensation packages for them. Right now, two council members have done so. It gets even more cloudy when the police department does special favors for other politicos, such as running database checks on men their daughter is dating. (Even though the Almanac ran a story on this when it happened, it recently deleted a comment I posted about it. Hopefully it doesn’t this time and remembers its own story history).

All of this, to me, adds up to a notion that the police union doesn’t believe residents would make the decision to keep the PD based on subjective value assessments unless they put a thumb on the scale, and this isn’t right. It should be a part of the current discussion.

Finally, the recent town center vote, which basically can be viewed as “can we use the surplus to build the town center instead of abating the parcel tax” did not receive a 2/3rd approval. This suggests that not enough residents believe in the value proposition of the new town center on top of the independent Atherton police department (at least the new town center as currently framed) to support a continuation of the parcel tax. What has been done about it since this measurement was taken?

Nothing, really. I do understand the people who are involved in the town center very much support the police. After all, most of the town center is about the police. I do know they don’t want to scale things back in light of the vote. They believe in the current design. I just don’t think it’s necessarily going to turn out well given all of the foregoing.

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 11:12 am

@Here are some facts - good thoughts. While I don't entirely agree, you made some good points. Here are some other facts to ponder as posters bring up Woodside and Portola Valley.

Woodside pays $1.7m a year for its sheriff services. Far less than the Town of Atherton at $6m. For the $1.7m, Woodside has 1 deputy and 1 vehicle, 24/7. That's it. Portola Valley has the same. You can easily do the math on that to extrapolate what a like for like cost would be for Atherton. Arguments can be made on both sides with respect to service delivery, concierge service, and needs (traffic, schools, etc.).

Web Link

Atherton averages about 40-50 calls for service per day from our residents. That's a lot for one officer to handle - plus normal traffic control and presence.

Web Link

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 11:20 am

Correction: There is an additional deputy shared between the two communities so each have 1.5 deputies on shift during the day and Woodside pays for a motorcycle officer via a grant for day shift only.

Posted by Apple
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 11:54 am

Boy, I opened a hornet's nest. :-)

But more dialogue is good.

The outsourcing police services issue should be taken up outside the context of the parcel tax. The parcel tax itself is wrapped with so many things. It's hard to distinguish whether a No vote means spend less on the civic center, police, road maintenance, park improvements, etc. Or people may just want a smaller parcel tax. Or people are fine if the town just borrows the money to pay for these services since we expect surpluses once the civic center project is done. Interests rates remain low and Atherton has excellent credit and tax base.

The town residents would benefit from an objective look at what outsourcing would provide. What is the difference in services? What would be the difference in response times? Should the APD force be smaller or bigger based on what residents want today? Should we (Can we) outsource dispatching? Can we maintain the same service levels and response times if we paid the sheriff more for outsourcing? If so, what would that cost?

Since police services are the biggest part of Atherton's budget, we should review the cost on a regular basis and make the analysis public, maybe right before every police union contract expires. We're conducting a fire services fiscal review right now. We could conduct a similar review of police services with the addition of taking resident input.

My guess is outsourcing will not gain us much. We save money on the consolidation with the sheriff's office, but the sheriff's office pays on average much better than Atherton. The county still has pensions and retire benefits to pay. Even if we outsourced, we would be on the hook for those, just indirectly.

But I could be wrong, which is why we should do the study.

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 12:43 pm

@Apple - good thoughts all around.

The contention that Atherton doesn't have crime is not borne out in the statistics and calls for service. The Police Department is busy - largely during the day with traffic, schools, routine calls for service, etc. At night, neighborhood patrols - particularly around primary points of entry into the community (easy in/easy out). Further, the police department assists outside agencies just like they assist Atherton. Meaning, Atherton officers are intimately familiar with and have responded to the types of calls for service in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Woodside, and the County.

There's a saying that you can't be half pregnant. Either you have your own police department with all the bells and whistles it comes with or you don't. You can contract out for parts of the services, but you lose something in the transaction. Atherton chose to have its own police department. There is a certain level of demand of service, response, and quality. It's not something you want to do in half-way manner. Could it be done? Certainly. The community may come to that decision some day, but I like you, do not believe that the parcel tax is the question to turn on. The percentage that goes to the police department is 20% - $372,000. The parcel tax largely funds streets, drainage, and other similar improvements.

Perhaps the Town could provide Woodside and Portola Valley contracts for Police Services and raise $1.7-$2m per contract?

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 12:55 pm

Facts Please is doing a good job of parsing facts he chooses to reveal, but here is the thing to think about.

Multiple people here have said neighboring communities have outsourced their police services to the sheriff.

Facts Please says sheriff's deputies make more than Atherton police officers. He also says they deal with the same real crime that a sheriff's deputy would.

It's also true that when this outsourcing has occurred, sheriff's deputy jobs were offered to the police officers of San Carlos, etc.

We also know that the Atherton police union has paid for robo calls, endorsed candidates, paid for their signs, etc. to make sure Atherton KEEPS ITS POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Something has to be wrong with this picture, right? The Atherton union should be trying to get itself outsourced to make more money in the Sheriff's office!

Or maybe it's more like Amazed has the essence of the situation and when you add in all the special codicils the Atherton cops have negotiated, they have it a lot better.

Don't just believe what someone like Facts Please says. Check out your own information. A lot of information is being disseminated to Atherton residents by groups with conflicts of interest.

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 1:04 pm

Transparent California - no Atherton conflicts of interest -

Web Link

Web Link

Town of Woodside Agreement with Sheriff - No Atherton-related conflicts of interest -

Web Link

Crime Reports - no conflicts of interest

Web Link

Not sure what @Too Rich is implying here, but the data is the data. No assumptions. No accusations of alternative motives. You can make your own decisions. Just use facts, not rhetoric. There's enough rhetoric on the national stage to go around. Atherton should make informed, rational, and intelligent decisions based on information and study.

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Didn't say what you were choosing to reveal were not facts. You're not revealing all the facts. Selective consideration of facts can lead to the wrong conclusions being made.

Care to comment on why the APD union doesn't want to get outsourced if sheriff's deputies get paid more (and have more promotion opportunities as part of a much bigger organization, and, apparently, according to you, the same job risks)?

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 1:20 pm

@Too RIch

Some do. Some have. Some don't. Serving as a deputy is different than serving as a local police officer in a police department. Sometimes it's about service. Sometimes its about opportunity. Sometimes it's about retirement packages, etc. Typically, when signing on as a deputy you must first serve 2 years working the County jail before you can get rotated out to patrol. You don't just get prime deployment opportunities right out of the gate.

It works in reverse as well - why is it that the Sheriff is interested in training their Captains as Police Chiefs? The experience is different. Leadership skill sets are different. There's more community touch at a police department than there is at a Sheriff's Department.

There's a host of reasons. Not always about money.

Posted by Too rich
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Sure, I agree, sometimes some people prefer to make less money in exchange for some other intangibles. It's rare.

When a whole police department does, my experience tells me it's not really true they would be making more money at the Sheriff's Department. They don't want to be outsourced because their deal at Atherton is better than what the Sheriff would offer. They've shown they're willing to fight, spending their own money to finance candidates, to keep their better deal.

The flip side of that coin is the residents would be getting a better deal with the Sheriff.

Posted by Facts Please
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 3:08 pm

@Too Rich

Good and healthy conversation. While I do not agree with you, we can certainly agree to disagree. I don't believe that the grass is greener with the Sheriff. I do hear of criminal activity and concerns in Portola Valley and in Woodside. They are adding cameras and license plate readers to try and compensate, but in the end, the community will likely demand more officers on the street. That means a higher priced contract with the Sheriff. We'll see.

Some communities are easier to police than others. The communities of Atherton, Portola Valley and Woodside do make prime targets. Policing in these types of communities is different. It's more about connections, personal touch, service delivery, access, etc. Many affluent communities choose to pay for their own police departments because they want to maintain local control. Atherton could be happy with the Sheriff's Department. Then again, they might not - and going back would likely not be that easy.

It's nothing to pin on the officers themselves or their decision-making with respect to their career. Unions are free to participate in the political process. The Sheriff's union is no different.

As I mentioned in a prior post, from what I know, the officers in the Police Department today are largely new; but I don't know of any employee - public or private - that relishes in the opportunity to be "outsourced." It's putting their careers on the craps table and hoping for a good roll. There would be no guarantees. If the Town were to simply roll with like for like, at $1.6 million for 1.5 officers in Woodside - the cost to the Town for a contract would be somewhere around $5.5-$6 million given current staffing. That's a lot of turmoil to save a $100,000 or so. If the savings were around $2-$3 million, great - but that means people lose their jobs and the Town gets less officers on the street.

Not an easy decision and it should not be a quick decision.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 25, 2017 at 3:20 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Here is data that was collected in 2013 - someone may want to updated it:

Cost comparison 2013

Agencies which have their own Police Department:

As of the census of 2010, there were
6,914 people
4.9 square miles (12.8 km²)
Police budget $5.6 M in 2012/13
$810 per capita

Redwood City
As of the census[1] of 2008, there were
75,508 people
34.6 sq miles
Police budget $31.7 M
$419 per capita

Palo Alto
As of the census of 2000, there were 58,598
23.7 sq miles
Police budget $29M
$494 per capita

Foster City
As of the census of 2000, there are 28,803
The city has a total area of 19.9 square
miles (51.6 km²), of which 3.8 square miles
(9.7 km²) is land and 16.2 square miles
(41.9 km²) is water.
Police budget $9.6 M
$333 per capita

As of the census of 2000, there were 28,158
The city has a total area of 15.6 km² (6.0 mi²).
11.2 km² (4.3 mi²) of it is land and 4.4 km²
(1.7 mi²) of it (28.19%) is water.
Police budget $9.5M
$337 per capita

As of the census[5] of 2000, there were
10,825 people
The town has a total area of 6.2 square miles
(16.1 km²), all of it land.
Police budget $8M
$739 per capita

Los Altos
The population was 27,693 according to the
2000 census.
6.3 square miles (16.4 km²).
Police dept budget $13.46 M
$485 per capita

Menlo Park
As of the census of 2010, there were
32,026 people
17.4 square miles (45 km2), of which
10.1 square miles (26 km2) is land
and 7.3 square miles (19 km2) is water. Police services budget $14.95M
$466.80 per capita

East Palo Alto
As of the census of 2009, there were 35,791 people,
2.6 square miles (6.7 km²), of which 2.5 square miles (6.6 km²) are land and 0.04 square miles (0.1 km²) of it (0.78%) are water.
Police budget $10,262,651
$287 per capita

Agencies which contract out their police services:

The population was 30,318 at the 2007 census.
The city has a total area of 21.1 square miles
(31.4 km²)
Police costs via County Sheriff $4.34 M
$143 per capita

11.8 square miles (30.5 km²)
As of the census of 2010, there were
5,287 people
Police services via County Sheriff $1.45 M
$274 per capita
new contract 2012/13
The Woodside Town Council approved a budget that included ■ Sheriff's contract: A council majority approved a three-year $1.45 million law enforcement contract with the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office. Unlike the annual jumps of 10 percent in previous contracts, this one rises by 4 percent for the first year and 3 percent after that.

Portola Valley
The population was 4,462 at the 2000 census
9.2 square miles (23.7 km²)
Police services via Sheriff $498,601
$111 per capita

San Carlos
The population was 27.238 in 2008
5.93 square miles
Police services via proposed Sheriff's contract
$6.8 M
$248.62 per capita

Contra Costa County

Excerpt of FY 2011-12 Law Enforcement Comparison Survey – Cost Per Resident
Municipality Cost Per Resident
Moraga $137.44
Lafayette $171.57
Danville $188.33
Oakley $214.50
Orinda $227.25

Posted by Apple
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 25, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Unions are loathe to throw a minority of its members under the bus, even if it would greatly benefit a majority of its members. If it does, the union sets up a toxic culture within the membership where everyone is trying to get their own, not working together in negotiations. Employers will play one faction against another in order to force concessions it would not normally get.

Only when the union membership stays unified can it maximize its negotiating position. For that to happen, members need to have trust that everyone is looking out for each other.

That would explain the Atherton police union behavior. Even in a merger with the county, I don't think Atherton patrol officers see all upside. The pay is better, but are they going in with the same seniority? If the county bumps them down to junior officers, their pay would be docked. Will they have have to wait in line behind other deputies for overtime opportunities? Will they have the seniority to limit their night, weekend, and holiday shifts?

During a merger, the police officers would have to join the union representing the sheriff's employees. And I would bet the rules stipulate new members have to move to the back of the line for all the perks.

Posted by Irony, thy name is...
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Aug 28, 2017 at 10:39 am

It's kind of hilarious to see the residents of Atherton berating each other over the merits of a parcel tax, after the way some of them savaged MPCSD over its proposed/approved parcel taxes. ;)

Posted by Petet F Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 28, 2017 at 11:56 am

There is a subtle difference between MPCSD with four parcel taxes, three of which never expire, and Atherton with one parcel tax that is subject to voter approval every four years.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Analysis/paralysis: The infamous ‘Palo Alto Process’ must go
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 2,026 views

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,534 views

The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 5 comments | 1,458 views

Planting a Fall Garden?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 890 views