---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The fundamental class division in any society is not between rich and poor, or between farmers and city dwellers, but between tax payers and tax consumers.”

--David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"......property tax payments are built into most homeowner's monthly mortgage payment. An increase in property taxes equals an increase in the monthly mortgage payment for most homeowners."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In college, I remember taking a course about public taxation theory and practice. We spent a lot of time discussing the four Rs of taxation; revenue, redistribution, repricing, and representation; we talked about regressive, progressive and proportional taxes; discussed tax incidence; and just about everything else you would want to know about tax theory. Just about everything except the impact that taxes have on the personal lives of the people who have to pay them. This is the human cost of tax policy that government policymakers and politicians almost always overlook when they increase the tax misery index by proposing, supporting and/or approving new and higher taxes.

In California, and for the matter throughout the United States; the Federal, state, and local tax burden is becoming so great that many families are living on the edge of poverty, bankruptcy and foreclosure. With their taxes and debts piling up, taxpayers are becoming increasingly susceptible to total financial collapse as governments continue to raise taxes on every product, piece of property and service that people use, own or come in contact with. You could say that in the United States we are all being infected by a virulent, opportunistic tax plague that is literally killing some people.

A growing number of American families are so overburdened with debt and taxes that even a small increase in their tax burden can mean foreclosure and/or bankruptcy because property tax payments are built into most homeowner's monthly mortgage payment. For most homeowners, an increase in property taxes equals an increase in the monthly mortgage payment.

Like a game of musical chairs, each time a new property tax is passed another chair is removed and fewer people have a place to sit or, for that matter home or apartment to sit in, because higher property taxes increase monthly mortgage payments and rents. Higher property taxes often lead to foreclosure which often leads to bankruptcy which, with increasing frequency, has been leading to suicide.

These destructive taxes are a transfer of wealth from taxpayers, whose families and lives are destroyed by these taxes, into the pockets of those who feed at the public trough. In the words of David Boaz, the executive vice president of the Cato Institute: “The fundamental class division in any society is not between rich and poor, or between farmers and city dwellers, but between tax payers and tax consumers”.

Even as more families are destroyed as a result of being overburdened with property taxes they cannot afford to pay; local government entities continue to pile on regressive property taxes that put home ownership beyond the reach of middle income families while adding to the number of foreclosures and bankruptcies.

Most politicians in California manage to get themselves elected to office by promising public employee unions they will pass higher taxes so unionized government workers (whose salary, benefit and retirement packages represent 70% - 90% of most government budgets)  can continue to collect platinum plated salary, benefit and retirement packages not available to the private sector employees who feed these government workers with the taxes they pay.

The destructive impact that these abusive tax policies have on taxpayers rarely, if ever, gets factored into the decision to tax. Unionized government employees are insulated from tax increases because their unions make sure that the politicians they feed campaign money to grant salary and benefit increases to unionized public employees to cover the cost of any tax increases imposed on the general public.

Beyond the foreclosures, beyond the bankruptcies and beyond the other negative impacts of these destructive tax policies there is a morbid, catastrophic consequence.

For a growing number of people who are the targets of these abusive tax policies, the end game in this tax - foreclosure - bankruptcy nightmare is suicide. High property taxes, that result in higher mortgage payments, are often the proverbial straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back for homeowners facing extreme financial problems. People who would otherwise be able to afford staying in their homes are forced out of their homes and, more often then not, into bankruptcy because they can't afford to pay the property taxes on the house or the property tax burden makes it impossible to afford the house.

The link between foreclosures and suicide is well documented. If you Google the words, foreclosure related suicides you get the following search results:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,080,000 for foreclosure related suicides.

Story after story after story after story tell the horrific tales of people who killed themselves because their homes were foreclosed. Without exception, the one thing they all had in common is that the property tax burden placed on them played a part in the foreclosure that led to their suicide. In some cases property taxes played a large part in the foreclosure  suicide while in other cases property taxes played a smaller role in the foreclosure suicide. Because these foreclosure related suicides are not isolated incidents and because they are happening with increasing frequency, you could say that for many people, the present system constitutes the functional equivalent of a tax - foreclosure - bankruptcy - suicide machine. Taxes in one end, suicides out the other.

From a public policy perspective, this growing suicide epidemic represents a threat to public health and safety. Instead of working to understand this  public health crisis and find solutions that will reduce or eliminate these financial related suicides, the Federal, state, and local governments either ignore the problem or exacerbate it by piling on more taxes. This unhealthy, destructive dynamic between government and the taxpayers it allegedly serves must change.

One of the most heartbreaking stories of foreclosure related suicide is the 2009 story of Julie Fay. Ms. Fay was an Army veteran in Virginia who died in a murder suicide after having the home she had lived in for 13 years foreclosed  on and sold out from under her. She had reached out to her mortgage lender, politicians and the local newspaper but nobody would help her. The story about this horrific incident, published at the insideNoVA.com site, observed:

"During the foreclosure, the couple said they reached out to local and state offices hoping for some kind of government assistance."

No government assistance. However, you can be sure that the local and state governments were very proactive about sending out their tax bills and collecting the taxes.

The bottom line is that almost nobody in local or state government cares for the Julie Fays of this world or any of the other people who have committed foreclosure related suicide. These poor people do not have political connections; these poor people do not have any money they can use to fight for their home; most of these poor people do not have the educational backgrounds necessary to redress the wrongs that have been perpetrated against them; and finally, these poor people do not have anybody who will go to bat for them because there is no profit in it for the legal community. Is this not a tragedy? Is this not something we should all be ashamed of and do something about?

Nobody cared enough to help Julie Fay so she and her husband died. You could say that Julie Fay and her husband were taxed to death.

Well, here we go again. The San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCD) Board of Trustees wants to pick the pockets of San Mateo County's property owners and renters by passing a tax during these tough economic times. The SMCCD needs to get a clue that they need to make do with the money that California's taxpayers have laready given them and continue to give them every year. San Mateo County's taxpayers have to live within a set budget so why does the SMCCD think they don't?

At their March 10, 2010 Board Meeting, the SMCCD Board of Trutees will probably vote to move forward with putting a new tax proposal on the Tuesday, June 8, 2010 election ballot.

The SMCCD Board thinks they can put this junk tax on the ballot and automatically get it approved. After all, they paid $41,000 of your tax dollars to a polling firm who told them they could get away with this nonsense. Well, they may pass this tax, then again they may not pass it. Either way, they are not going to pass it without one hell of a fight from taxpayers who think the the SMCCD Board of Trustees are way out of line putting this junk tax on the ballot during these bad economic times. Perhaps if these "Board Members" had to pay the cost of putting this junk tax on the ballot, instead of using our taxpayer money for this nonsense, they would think twice about it.

On February 9, 2010, an article appeared in the Beacon titled:

SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT WANTS TO RAISE THE TAX MISERY INDEX BY INCREASING TAXES ON SAN MATEO COUNTY PROPERTY OWNERS. RENTERS WILL ALSO FEEL THE PAIN AS PROPERTY OWNERS INCREASE RENTS TO PASS PASS TAX BURDEN TO RENTERS.

In this article, I made the following observation:

The San Mateo County Community College District (SMCCCD) paid Godbe $41,000 of your taxpayer money for this telephone poll. The SMCCCD claims that they need money. Yet they have $41,000 to pay Godbe to call 1,200 people.

This is just one example of the type of money wasting stupidity that not only tells us the SMCCD has taxpayer money to burn but also serves as a warning that the SMCCD canot be trusted to make prudent decisions about the expenditure of the taxpayer money being handed to them each year. This is just one of the many examples of waste by the SMCCD that we will be bringing to voter's attention during this campaign.

San Mateo County's taxpayers are being buried in taxes. We are being taxed time after time after time by the same government taxing authorities who never seem to have enough money when it comeS time to put another tax measure on the ballot but always have enough money to pay for the platinum plated salary, benefit and retirement packages handed out to the bureaucrats who work for these government institutions that are always pleading poverty.

Enough is enough. It's time to say no to more taxes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you reduce California's $12.64 billion Higher Education budget to increase California's $36.787 billion K-12 education budget? Then, you would have angry college students, parents and college professors squaring off against angry elementary and high school students, their parents and k-12 teachers. Those families having kids in college and grades k-12 could fight among themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California State Assemblyman Jerry Hill and State Senator Leland Yee stopped by San Bruno earlier this week. They gave some lip service and a pep talk to the crowds of parents and children in San Bruno who are being hit with education cutbacks in the San Bruno Park School District. These education cutbacks are the result of Democrats like Hill and Yee burying California under a mountain of debt that will sooner or later result in the total financial collapse of California's State government, crushing taxes and a level of State services similar to what you would find in the Alaskan wilderness.

Want to see what California's future looks like? Take a look at the current economic catastrophe playing itself out in Greece. California's economic collapse is not unlike the current financial meltdown going on in Greece. Like Greece; the State of California is plagued with powerful public sector unions, massive amounts of government debt and a huge budget deficit. Greece is also being dragged into the financial gutter by an inefficient government bureaucracy and widespread political corruption. What is now happening in Greece is almost exactly what is going to happen in California. Union riots, disintegration of government services and tax increases that will result in almost every private sector businesses and middle - upper income Californian, who works in the private sector, leaving California. On the positive side, both Greece and California have nice weather.

Politicians, especially Democrat politicians like Hill and Yee, excel at wrecking the economy and lying to their constituents. These two will tell a crowd almost anything the crowd wants to hear. If a crowd yelled loud enough for blue sky in the middle of a thunderstorm, Hill and Yee would tell the crowd the sky was blue.

Hill and Yee are poster boys for the old political adage, "There is no morality in politics; there is only expediency". That observation was made by Vladimir Lenin who, like Hill and Yee, was a fan of huge, expensive, intrusive government; destruction of the private sector; and big speeches, filled with empty rhetoric,  to the crowds of people suffering from his policies.

Democrats like Hill and Yee have been instrumental in increasing California's debt and raising your taxes.  They continue to tell the growing angry crowds of people that they don't want to cut whatever part of the budget a particular crowd happens to be yelling at them about. This is the same type of asinine political pandering that has gotten California into the financial mess it is now in.

More than a few of the crowds yelling at these two political hacks are going to have their hearts broken when the political circus these two clowns are acting in comes to a screeching halt when the money runs out.

Since Hill and Yee are either too ignorant or deceitful to tell you the real truth about how bad things are in California; let me do it:

According to the California State Controller's Office:

The State started the fiscal year with an $11.9 billion cash deficit in the General Fund, which grew to $24.1 billion by January 31. Those deficits are being covered with a combination of $15.3 billion of internal borrowing from special funds and $8.8 billion in short-term Revenue Anticipation Notes.

According to the California States Treasurer's Office, the State of California has $63.4 billion in bond debt outstanding and $47.5 billion in bond debt that has not yet been sold.

You don't need to have a degree in finance to know that when you have a $24.1 billion cash deficit and $63.4 billion in outstanding debt, you are in deep Scheiße.

Now that we have established that California is flat broke, let's take a look at California's State Budget items:

K-12 Education (31% / $36.787 billion); Health and Human Services (25.1% / $29.794 billion); Corrections and Rehabilitation (6.8% / $8.031 billion);  Environmental Protection (1.2% / $1.470 billion); Labor and Workforce Development (.4% / $435 million); State and Consumer Services (1.1% / $1.366 billion); Higher Education (10.6% / $12.64 billion); General Government (3.7% / $4.4 billion); Legislative, Judicial, Executive (5.2% / $6.13 billion); Business, Transportation and Housing (10.5% / $12.5 billion); Natural Resources (4.4% / $5.187 billion).

A very strong case can be made not to cut every one of the budget items mentioned in the previous paragraph. For example: Would you reduce the Corrections and Rehabilitation budget from 6.8 percent of California's State Budget to 5.8 or 4.8 percent of the State Budget so the k-12 Education Budget could be increased? Good luck trying that budget maneuver. The CCPOA would probably have a thing or two to say about reducing California's Corrections budget. By the time they were done getting people all hot and bothered about having criminals released and on the streets you would be lucky if the k-12 Education Budget didn't lose a few percentage points to the Corrections and Rehabilitation Budget. Another example: Would you reduce California's $12.64 billion Higher Education budget to increase California's $36.787 billion K-12 education budget? Then, you would have angry college students, parents and college professors squaring off against angry elementary and high school students, their parents and k-12 teachers. Those families having kids in college and grades k-12 could fight among themselves.

Here's the bottom line. Sooner or later, California will have to shrink the size of State government to a fraction of what it is today. In the meantime, Democrats, like Hill and Yee, are going to continue raising taxes and selling more debt until California's lenders shut the money window. Politicians like Hill and Yee don't care how bad things get. They will move on to other jobs in politics like Jackie Speier who is also one of the architects of California's current budget disaster.  Private sector businesses and their employees will flee the taxes and leave California. California will turn into a dirt poor State of government employees and welfare recipients. Since neither one of these groups creates original tax dollars, they will both end up in the same boat as everyone else who depends on California's government for services. Out of luck.

When the Beacon moved to its current platform one of the top things on our "to do" list was to create a user friendly "complaint center". Over the years, some of the thousands of people who read the Beacon, both inside and outside of government, have provided us with valuable information that has been used to positively affect the outcome of events and the conduct of government. Our screening process, for information received, has allowed us to focus on actionable information that has the highest probability of resulting in a positive outcome.

We are now developing a "complaint center" for all of those Beacon readers who have complaints about San Bruno's City Government, the San Bruno Park School District and San Mateo County Government. Many of these complaints will be published in the Beacon. As this service grows, we will be adding complaint centers for every City in San Mateo County.

You don't have to be an avid Beacon reader to know that San Bruno's City government seems to be the poster child for bad government in San Mateo County, perhaps in the whole State of California. When we are done building our "complaint center" you can become the eyes and ears of the Beacon by visiting the complaint center and filling out our complaint form. You will be able to tell your story and upload any pictures or documents supporting your story.

Now, everybody can be an active part of the Beacon family and use the Beacon to get their story about bad government in front of the thousands of people who read the Beacon each week.

In San Bruno, it is getting to the point where the employee unions in the San Bruno Park School District (SBPSD) are getting very obnoxious in their refusal to take pay and benefit cuts to help protect the educations of SBPSD students. The SBPSD employee unions think they are somehow immune to bad economic times and should continue receiving bigger checks and benefits for working nine or ten months each year. They are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of shared sacrifice.

Well, there's bad news on the horizon for these folks because California is almost out of money. All the dancing around, noisy demonstrations and intimidation tactics will mean nothing when the money runs out.

At this point, you have to start wondering if these "teachers" and their other union brothers and sisters in the SBPSD are interested in protecting whatever level of education they are providing to the students (only 68.5% of whom will graduate from high school) or are just interested in angling for the fattest paychecks and benefit packages they can yell, scream and intimidate out of the SBPSD Board of Trustees and the taxpayers who live in the SBPSD.

The latest hairbrained scheme being advanced to make sure the SBPSD employee union members do not have to share any burden during this budget crisis is to raid a fund called Fund 40. Fund 40 is a restrictive reserve fund in which money has been set aside from the sale of former SBPSD property. The money in this restrictive reserve fund is set aside for capital improvement projects and cannot be used for general operating expenses such as teacher salaries. The SBPSD has already received a waiver from the State of California to use the interest on the Fund 40 money for general expenses. Now, they want to use the principal in the fund for general expenses.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The petition being passed around contains the following language:

To: San Bruno Park School District Board of Trustees

"We the undersigned citizens and registered voters of San Bruno, California, respectfully order that during this budget crisis, the board put the commitment to upgrade and renovate Parkside Intermediate School on hold. To spend 20 million dollars from the district’s Fund 40 reserve is fiscally irresponsible and not looking out for the best interest of your students.

At this time, it is far more important to provide quality school programs to all of our children. Eliminating such programs as Class Size Reduction (increasing class sizes from 20 to 31), Physical Education, Music, Gifted and Talented Education, Counseling, School Safety, School libraries, and teacher training will be detrimental to our children. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unionized teachers in the SBPSD obviously don't think that eliminating programs for the children in the SBPSD would be detrimental to the children because they are not willing to take the pay and benefit cuts necessary to protect the programs the petition seeks to protect by draining Fund 40.

The SBPSD employee unions won't take pay and benefit cuts. They won't agree to layoffs. They won't agree to anything that involves their making a shared sacrifice to keep things afloat in the SBPSD. As I see it, the refusal of the SBPSD unions to agree to lower wages and benefits will eventually lead to massive layoffs in the SBPSD.

 Here's why it does not make sense to raid Fund 40 to pay for current expenses:

1). The SBPSD has already received a waiver from the State of California to use Fund 40 interest for general expenses. By reducing the amount of principal in Fund 40, there will be less interest generated by the Fund. Therefore, there will be less interest available for general expenses on a recurring basis.

2). Fund 40 is necessary to make critical infrastructure improvements to the schools and to pay for deferred maintenance.

3). Fund 40 contains money from the sale of SPBSD property. If this money is not being used by the SBPSD for capital projects it should be returned to the taxpayers. Why isn't anybody proposing a distribution of this money to taxpayers in the SBPSD. I'm sure, in these tough economic times, everybody could use a nice rebate from the SBPSD.

4). If the SBPSD were to be successful in draining Fund 40 to pay for current expenses, there would be insufficient money to pay for long term capital improvement projects and deferred maintenance. Instead of handing out refunds to taxpayers, as suggested in item #3; the SBPSD would be trying to increase the property taxes on people living in the SBPSD.

5). As mentioned earlier in this article, if the SBPSD employee unions would take pay and benefit cuts there would not be any need to eliminate any of the programs in the SBPSD.

Let's look at the reality of this situation. Every parcel of property in the SBPSD pays property taxes that help fund the SBPSD. However, only a minority of those taxed parcels of property have children living on the property who attend school in the SBPSD. Most property owners are paying for a school system they do not use. And many property owners have so little confidence in the ability of the SBPSD to provide their children with a decent education that they are sending their children to private schools at great personal expense even while still being forced to pay property taxes to the SBPSD.

That being said, the SBPSD employee unions are not doing themselves any favors by being intrasigent and refusing to take the pay and benefit cuts necessary to help insure that the students in the SBPSD do not lose programs. After all, pay and benefits to SBPSD employees represent approximately 80% of the SBPSD budget so this is where the vast majority of budget reductions can be obtained. If voters living in the SBPSD become fed up with the stubborn SBPSD employee unions, they may start electing SBPSD Board Members who will take the legal action necessary to make the necessary job, salary and benefit cuts that this pro union SBPSD Board of Trustees refuse to make.

As far as Fund 40 is concerned; any attempt by the SBPSD Board of Trustees to raid Fund 40, to pay for general expenses, will be aggressively challenged. My guess is that there are sufficient legal resources in place to mount a serious challenge to any attempt by the SBPSD Board of Trustees to raid Fund 40.

In an earlier Beacon article, the following questions were asked:

"Was there a coverup in San Bruno's City Government to hide and/or deceive regulators and the public about these 148 raw sewage spills that took place over a 5 year period? Were official and/or unofficial documents or reports destroyed, altered or otherwise changed to hide these spills or mislead regulators and/or the public about these raw sewage spills? Who are the players in this eco-disaster? Who knew what, when did they know it and what did they do?"

Section VI of the  San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of San Bruno complaint is titled, "FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS". In Section VI(C), Baykeeper alleges that:

"San Bruno has been underreporting and/or misrepresenting the number of SSOs (Sanitary Sewer Overflows) from the collection system.............."

As I see it, this allegation is an invitation for the United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division to thoroughly investigate this very serious raw sewage dumping case to determine whether or not any criminal violations of Federal Law have taken place.

This allegation of underreporting and misrepresentation in the Baykeeper lawsuit against the City of San Bruno opens up a floodgate of possible tangential legal consequences for all individuals in the City of San Bruno government chain of command, associated with this eco-disaster, starting with San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson.

As I observed in an earlier Beacon article:

"These raw sewage spills began in 2004. San Bruno City Manager Jackson, who was appointed as San Bruno's City Manager in 2003, probably knew that San Bruno's sewage treatment system was being overburdened and that raw sewage was being dumped into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. If she didn't have direct knowledge, she had constructive knowledge of the raw sewage problems.

San Bruno Municipal Code Section 2.12.060 (Powers and duties) provides in part:

"The city manager shall be the administrative head of the city government under the direction and control of the city council. He or she shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the city which are under his or her control. In addition to his or her general powers as administrative head, and not as a limitation thereon, he or she shall have the following powers and duties:

B.     To manage and control the department heads of the city, and through them, their subordinates.....................................

J.      To investigate the affairs of the city, any department or division thereof under his or her jurisdiction, and all complaints regarding the administration of the city government and public utilities services in the city;

K.    To exercise general supervision of all property under the jurisdiction and control of the city;......."

It is quite clear that San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson, as San Bruno's administrative head of government during the 5 year period that these raw sewage spills took place, was directly responsible for the managment and control of San Bruno's Wastewater Division. Jackson also had the duty to investigate the affairs of the City and any department (including the Wastewater Division). In addition, she specifically had the affirmative duty to investigate all complaints regarding the "public utilities" services in the City.

Page 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of San Bruno complaint make it quite clear that the City of San Bruno had specific notice from the Regional Board as to what the specific Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) permit requirements were.

Therefore, it would appear that the people in the Wastewater Division chain of command, who were allegedly underreporting and/or misrepresenting the number of SSO's (Sanitary Sewer Overflows) from the City's wastewater collection system, were doing it with full knowledge as to what the rules for these reports were.

There could be serious criminal and personal legal consequences for anybody in the chain of command at San Bruno's Wastewater Division if it is found that reports were falsified and/or anybody participated in the intentional misrepresentation or underreporting of the numbers associated with the raw sewage dumping incidents that are the subject of the Baykeeper lawsuit against The City of San Bruno.

Teachers in the San Bruno Park School District (SBPSD) are pushing students under their control to wear armbands, identifying themselves as supporters of the teacher's March 4th union demonstrations. This sets a dangerous precedent and raises some ugly memories about other children who were used, as ideological tools, by being pushed and/or forced into wearing armbands by the adults who controlled their lives.

I would suggest that all of the teachers in the San Bruno Park School District, who are so anxious to have their students wear armbands, teach the Holocaust Armband Lesson to their classes. This lesson is sponsored by The Board of Jewish Education of Metropolitan Chicago. Perhaps these SBPSD teachers would not be so enthusiastic about putting armbands on their students after teaching this valuable lesson.

Here's an e-mail message from SBPSD Superintendent Hutt on the armband issue:

In the San Bruno Park School District (SBPSD) we have the San Bruno Education Association – SBEA and the California School Employees Association – CSEA – Chapter 139 who think that by creating a major disruption in the educations of students (approximately 31.5% of whom will never graduate from high school), to support the unions in the SBPSD, they will advance the cause of saving their jobs and propping up their salary and benefit packages.

The "Stand Up for Schools" rhetoric being fed to people by the California Teachers Association (CTA) gives the unions an excuse to rope students and parents into demonstrating for the public school union members who do not want to face the economic reality that they have priced themselves out of the labor market and must take wage, benefit and job cuts to help keep the public schools afloat.

Because their salaries represent approximately 80% of the SBPSD Budget, if these demonstration happy union members were really serious about "saving our schools", they would agree to job cuts for some members and substantial pay-benefit cuts for other union members to help offset the budget problems the SBPSD is now facing.

But I digress. The real issue here is that the teacher union members, mentioned in the previous paragraphs, want students in the SBPSD to wear armbands showing their support for the union members who teach them.

Here's the problem with teachers, who are union members, talking children under their control into wearing armbands to support their cause:

1). Armbands impact identity in that teachers can readily see which students support them. Students not wearing armbands are viewed as non-supporters. The expectation is that students who wear armbands will receive favorable treatment over students who do not wear armbands.

2). Armbands impact a student's choice and behavior. Students wearing armbands supporting their teacher believe they are in a superior position vis-a-vis their peers who do not wear an armband. They act on this assumption.

3). Armbands are a proven tool of intimidation that have been used by extremist groups to identify supporters and punish non-supporters.

Example:

The fanatic NAZIS fully understood the value of using armbands to identify supporters and enemies. Members of the NAZI Party and children in the Hitler Youth movement wore NAZI armbands to identify themselves as NAZIs. On the other hand, the NAZIs forced members of the Jewish community, and their children, to wear armbands identifying themselves as Jews.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was there a coverup in San Bruno's City Government to hide and/or deceive regulators and the public about these 148 raw sewage spills that took place over a 5 year period? Were official and/or unofficial documents or reports destroyed, altered or otherwise changed to hide these spills or mislead regulators and/or the public about these raw sewage spills? Who are the players in this eco-disaster? Who knew what, when did they know it and what did they do?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice handles environmental and natural resources litigation on behalf of the United States. One of their jobs is to prosecute cases under federal pollution law. In my opinion, if there was ever a case of intentional pollution and alleged violation of the Clean Water Act,  that begged for investigation and intervention by the U.S. Attorney, this is the one.

In a 02/22/2010 Beacon story I pointed out that between 2004 and 2009, the City of San Bruno dumped raw sewage into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean 148 times. You would think that after the 25th, maybe 50th, perhaps the 100th, maybe even the 125th time the City of San Bruno dumped raw sewage into the Bay and Pacific Ocean somebody would have taken the action necessary to put an end to this ecological disaster.

In my opinion, we need to start identifying the individuals responsible for this environmental disaster and hold them personally responsible for their actions or inactions that resulted in this tragic series of events. We need to do this in order to obtain financial recovery for San Bruno's residents; insure that if necessary the appropriate, the proper level of legal punishment is applied and to make sure this type of damage to the environment does not happen again.

It is clear that the intent to pollute was present because it has been reported that there were 148 raw sewage spills over a five year period. In my opinion the people who were being paid to manage San Bruno's waste treatment system, are responsible for creating and exacerbating this ecological nightmare. Now San Bruno's City Council and Manager are planning to pass on the cost of this disaster to San Bruno's residents. Perhaps they will.

However, there is also the possibility that all of the culprits in this eco-disaster will each be personally sued and held personally liable in a taxpayer lawsuit to recover damages resulting from these raw sewage spills. As I see it, an argument can be made that municipal government officials lose their immunity to personal liability when they are grossly negligent and engage in reckless conduct outside the scope of their employment. To the best of my knowledge, I don't think anybody was ever hired by the City of San Bruno to dump raw sewage into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean 148 times. In this case it would appear that we left gross negligence at the second or third spill. After 148 raw sewage spills we may need to develop a new legal term for what in my opinion is this off the charts degree of gross negligence.    

These raw sewage spills began in 2004. San Bruno City Manager Jackson, who was appointed as San Bruno's City Manager in 2003, probably knew that San Bruno's sewage treatment system was being overburdened and that raw sewage was being dumped into the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean. If she didn't. Then why didn't she know? The San Bruno City employees in San Bruno's Water and Wastewater Divisions must have known that raw sewage was being dumped into the San Francisco Bay. So, once again, why was this allowed to continue for 5 years and where is all of the documentation and paperwork for each and every raw sewage spill? Who knew what, when did they know it and what did they do each time there was a spill?

So far, San Francisco Baykeeper, has filed a lawsuit against the City of San Bruno in an attempt to get the City of San Bruno to undertake aggressive repairs and reduce the sewage spills into the Bay. However, that's not the end of this story because we need to know all the facts about these 148 sewage spills occurred over a five year period.

 No discussion about San Bruno's overburdened wastewater treatment system would be complete without discussing the role that redevelopment played in this ecological disaster. According to the City of San Bruno, redevelopment activities have added 1,063 units of multifamily housing to the City's infrastructure. There can be little doubt that, during the past 10 years, this redevelopment activity has added to the burden on the City of San Bruno's sewage system. Developers, contractors and other players in the real estate food chain got rich by dumping all of this housing in San Bruno that has helped overburden the sewage treatment system and create this environmental catastrophe. Since they may have played a role in this problem they also need to start answering some questions.