The big question and answer will be will the majority of the Atherton Council withdraw from the fire district?

Vote and get it over with, or continue to live this lie.... Yes or No period....

Add in the data as percentile.

Also historical percentages from 80s 90s and today.

It will be instructive.

How about the taxes paid by Atherton residents to the Sequoia Healthcare District vs the expenditures by the Sequoia Healthcare District within the Town boundaries, and the taxes paid by Atherton residents to the Midpensula Regional Healthcare District vs the expenditures by the Midpensula Regional Healthcare District within the Town boundaries?

Withdrawing from the district would be stupid. Atherton can't (or won't) afford a new city center building, but they can afford to build fire stations and man them? In their dreams. Especially when you look at what they pay for Police protection. I don't think even the current Atherton officials are THAT stupid, but you never know.

Peter Carpenter wrote:

'[what about] the Federal government'...
'[what about] the State government'...
'[what about] the school districts'...

Whataboutism: is a defensive propaganda technique used to counter criticism by attempting to discredit an opponent's position by citing similar examples without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

Whataboutism is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy.

Mr. Carpenter's debate tactic is a logical fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument. It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.

Woodside Fire - I have always stipulated that Atherton residents pay more taxes to the Fire District than the cost of their services from the Fire District so my questions are not an attempt at diversion but rather to place the tax/benefit ratio in proper perspective to that of other taxing entities.

Why do you not similarly deal with the facts rather than trying to falsely characterize someone else's position?

Falsely characterize?

It's pure what-about-ism - you did everything but type the actual word. How on earth are you denying that??? Watching too much Rudy G this weekend?

I have always stipulated that Atherton residents pay more taxes to the Fire District than the cost of their services from the Fire District so my questions are not an attempt at diversion but rather to place the tax/benefit ratio in proper perspective to that of other taxing entities.

Copying your previous words to ignore when called about your logical fallacy. Okey-dokie. At least we're all clear on it.

No you are not clear - your claim is a false one. I did not cite similar examples without directly refuting or disproving their argument. I have always stipulated that Atherton residents pay more taxes to the Fire District than the cost of their services from the Fire District so my questions are not an attempt at diversion but rather to place the tax/benefit ratio in proper perspective to that of other taxing entities.

Hey, Carpenter, [portion removed; stick to the topic and don't attack other posters]. The Town or Atherton is paying way more for fire services than the services it receives. Instead of trying to figure out how to right that wrong, you are deflecting. These are funds that would be rightfully given to the Atherton Police Department. We are going to lose good officers because we can’t pay competitive compensation.

Get real. Stop deflecting.

The Town of Atherton pays ZERO for Fire Services.

The residents of Atherton pay taxes to many entities and in all cases those residents receive less in services than they pay in taxes because that is the way that we as a society have chosen to set up our tax system.

None of the taxes paid by Atherton residents "belong" to the Town except those that are paid to the Town.

Carpenter is arguing semantics ("The Town of Atherton pays ZERO for Fire Services."). OK, fine, the residents pay the taxes, and these taxes get distributed to the fire district, and the residents/town get less service than they pay for. The Town of Atherton, representing the residents, is trying to get this fixed. Carpenter still can't refute the fact that we are paying more than we are getting. He doesn't explain why it's okay for the fire district to squander our money. The money should be spent on items benefiting Atherton residents. Town center, police department, road and drainage improvement. Right now it's being wasted. Because Carpenter is against the police department, he thinks this is okay.

"The money should be spent on items benefiting Atherton residents. "

Do you hold tax payments to the Federal, State, County and school districts to the same "standard"

Do the residents of Atherton, rather than there appointed representatives, really want to become the independent Country of Atherton?

"Because Carpenter is against the police department"

No, I am not "against the police department"-as stated in the original posting "given Atherton’s own expenditures for its excellent Police Department,"

I do believe that the county wide consolidation of both police and fire services would result in both better services and lower per capita costs.

Reasonable people in Atherton: We're paying much more in taxes to the fire district than the value of the service we're getting. This is a problem.

Carpenter: Screw you.

I agree, these are not his exact words. He's parsing, like Finances put, deflecting, and trying to confuse the issue. He's totally uninterested in actually addressing the substance of the issue, rebalancing that financial equation.

No, we don't want a County of Atherton. We want to stop getting taken advantage of. By the way, the pay packages in this fire district are through the roof. Carpenter doesn't want to talk about this either!

Nonsense - Given Prop 13 and AB 8 there is nothing you or anybody else can do to reallocate property taxes.

You can keep complaining and calling names but that won't change a thing - as the Town Council has finally realized after spending $100k of taxpayers' money to get the same answer that they were given in the first place for free.

No doubt Atherton’s residents are paying more in taxes than the fire services they receive. Peter says, essentially, so what else is new? It’s a progressive tax, noblesse oblige, if you will.

I don’t agree that is how things would work in my ideal world, but do admit I pay more in taxes to the government in general than the services I receive. I think the balance is off. If the council can correct that in this one instance, I’m for it.

But then “Finances” says if they can do this, those monies shouldn’t be relieved from the tax burden I’m paying, but rather given to the underpaid Atherton Police Department.

Underpaid? Seriously? With 24 likes? They are anything but underpaid.

Lots of hypocrisy going around on this issue.

So strange - You are correct!

Nothing that the Council has done or proposes to do will reduce the property taxes of a single Atherton resident by even a penny.

Nothing that the Council has done or proposes to do will improve the fire services provided to Atherton residents.

What exactly is the Council trying to “accomplish” except to continue to waste our taxpayers’ money?

They're trying to see if the fire district will blink in a game of chicken and agree to build a station in the new town center so Atherton can afford to build that town center. That's one of three options on the table, the second one being crossing fingers and hoping bids come in a lot lower now (they won't), and the third ("nuclear") option of trying to raise debt which is unlikely to work.

Basically, Atherton's population can no longer support affording its own police department. That's not because the population has decreased, but rather working for the government no longer means taking less money for job security and a retirement package, and the low population means that the overhead of the department is a big line item per capita -- we can't scale out of it. (Yes, the comment by Finances that we are not paying competitively is ridiculous). They've also reached their limit of what they can get from the residents (parcel tax defeat, lack of donations).

Showing leadership would involve facing this reality head on, since the town center is mostly about building new police facilities, but instead the council is trying to kick the can down the road and try audacious tactics to get money now.

"Do you hold tax payments to the..."

ie. "What-About..."

Can't resist, can you?

"Can't resist, can you?"

No, simply because that is exactly the issue - which you and others attempt to obscure with fuzzy arguments about "Whataboutism" rather than discussing the facts.

Some facts to consider and discuss:

The last time the Fire District went to the voters on a tax issue (a $10 million increase in their Gann Limit) they received a 79.1% Yes vote.

The last time the Town went to the voters on a tax issue (a new parcel tax) they received a 52.5% Yes vote.

Percent of Fire Board Directors who have been elected to their current term of office - 100%

Percent of Town Council Members who have been elected to their current terms of office - 0%

Asked "Are you satisfied with level of service provided by our local fire department?" 98.5% of District residents over 18 years of age (including 100% of Atherton respondents) responded Yes.

In the same survey only 14.3% of Atherton residents wanted to separate from the Fire District.

A "search and replace" is in order!
FIND: Midpensula Regional Healthcare District
REPLACE WITH: Midpensula Regional Open Space District

"How about the taxes paid by Atherton residents to the Sequoia Healthcare District vs the expenditures by the Sequoia Healthcare District within the Town boundaries, and the taxes paid by Atherton residents to the Midpensula Regional Healthcare District vs the expenditures by the Midpensula Regional Healthcare District within the Town boundaries?"

Jack, at least Peter makes a concerted effort to avoid the actual words when he uses his what-about-ism logical fallacies. You? Not so much.

"How about the..."

Lindy - How about making a positive contribution to this "thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion" rather than just attacking other posters.

Peter - apparently, more than a few think highlighting your faulty style of 'debate' *is* a worthy contribution.

I did not, after reading many of your contributions, choose the word 'positive', for obvious reasons.

I find it fascinating that the town is considering withdrawal, given history. Certainly worthy of discussion - not of onerous filibustering using fallacy, however.

Lindy - please engage. Deal with the facts that I and others have presented .

It is a challenge but honest debate is the essence of democracy.

Don't just sit in the shadows and throw darts.

Lindy - if Atherton were able to detach from the Fire District that would result in a 20% reduction of services to residents of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park without reducing the property taxes of Atherton residents by a single cent. Is that what you want? Why?

"please engage"

Good heavens, Peter, please.

Why? The whole topic is *framed* on your fallacious what-about-ism. What about the state? What about feds? What about schools?

Sheesh! You claim moral high ground by falsely implying you are interested in fair debate, but your dart didn't miss just the dartboard, it dribbled out of your hand onto the floor.

Try again if you actually seek honest debate. And based on what we've observed, stay away from darts.

Lindy - again please present and defend your position. Others might learn from you.

For example, since the citizens have elected five people as Fire Board Directors why do you feel that the Town Council has any legitimacy in claiming to represent the residents of Atherton on Fire District issues?

Note that the Town Council refused the request to discuss at the Joint Meeting its negligence in approving the Lindenwood subdivision without any emergency egress or access points on either Bay Road or Marsh Road and how to remedy that very hazardous situation.

"the Town Council refused the request to discuss at the Joint Meeting its negligence in approving the Lindenwood subdivision without any emergency egress"

Ummmmm...Atherton was incorporated in 1923, with the bulk of the original homes built in the 30s thru 50s, after Linden Towers was torn down. The subdivision of the original estate (the most common time to address egress into/out-of a residential area) that became Lindenwood happened LONG BEFORE most/all current council members were even BORN, let alone on the council.

You're arguing the current council members should have addressed emergency egress IN UTERO! LOL!

Every governmental entity has a responsibility for all of its actions and the tenure or age of the current elected officials does not negate that responsibility.

For example, a totally new Town Council could not absolve itself of the debts incurred by the Town under previous Councils.

The Lindenwood emergency access/egress situation is both serious and urgent and the Town Council is simply sticking its head in the sand:

November 11, 2018
Atherton Town Council,
When the Town approved, many years ago, the subdivision of the Flood Estate into
the individual properties that now constitute Lindenwood a serious error was made.
That subdivision approval did not include any emergency egress or access on either
the North side or the East side of Lindenwood.
In the intervening years the fuel load, the number of homes (many with wood shake
roofs) and the total Lindenwood population have all increased dramatically.
During that same time climate change has significantly increased the number of
days each year when high fire danger occurs in this area. The number of very large
wind driven fires in 2017-18 in Northern California is unprecedented as is the
number of lives, homes, and acres lost. We now are having these devastating fires
even in November. We ignore the lessons of Coffey Park and Paradise at our peril.
The seven egress/access streets on the South and West sides are inadequate to
accommodate timely egress of the Lindenwood population while also permitting
access for first responders. In the event of a wind driven fire the current
configuration of Lindenwood access and egress points is grossly inadequate.
Should such a fire originate at M-A or on Middlefield or Ravenswood many of the
Lindenwood residents would be trapped with no way out.
I believe that the Town has a moral and legal obligation to:
1 – Notify the Lindenwood community of this existing significant hazard,
2 – Immediately develop and distribute a Fire Evacuation Plan (as we concerned
citizens did in 2008 for Walsh Road – see attached) for the current egress/access
configuration of Lindenwood,
3 - Authorize, fund and undertake an urgent study to find ways to create multiple
emergency egress and access points on Marsh Road and Bay Road,
4 – Install those emergency egress/access points before the 2019 fire season.
With deep concern,
Peter F. Carpenter
Concerned Citizen
Director, MPFPD (written as an individual Board member and not as a spokesperson
for the Board.)
Former Planning Commissioner, City of Palo Alto
Former Smokejumper, US Forest Service