Mr. Connors is the town making a gift of public funds when police officers come to investigate a crime ( fuel for cars, paper and pen to write report, police car usage)? Is a gift given of shelter when payments are made in town facilities of building permit fees? Is a gift given when books are loaned out to town residence? Is a gift given to employees of desk and chairs to sit in to conduct town business? How about the sand for sand bags are they a gift? Aren't we paying for these services when we pay our taxes? How much more money do you want to extort from our residents? You are not "absorbing costs" in removing trees (you have not indicated how big of a problem this is per year); you are using taxpayer funds for town needs.

This is just an ongoing attempt to get more and more tax money from residents to give more and more salary, raises and benefits to town employees especially the overpaid and bloated police department. Let's outsource it and save our residents some money. This is ridiculous!

Airbnb offers residents with surplus rooms and space the opportunity to supplement some of the cost of ownership. Many long time residents aren’t millionaires in mansions like our council. There are some on fixed incomes trying to make ends meet. The article doesn’t talk about any problems from short term rentals. Unless the town manager and council are looking for more ways to pay for the Town Center with town money, they should not make a problem that doesn’t exist.

Regarding charging residents for tree cleanup, this is another example of extracting money to fatten the coffers for the Town Center. To say that this would cost the residents anything extra is down right wrong.

Yes, that's exactly what the council is trying to do: force funding for the town center. It ties into the comment about the police department since most of the town center is for them including a spacious gym (just for them) and cafe. Enough already.

"contention that the town must charge homeowners when it removes a privately owned tree that has fallen into the public right-of-way, even if it's blocking a public road."

Fortunately if a downed tree is creating a hazard, blocking a right of way or impeding their access to a structure your fire district's firefighters will remove it without charge.

I don't see any issue with short term rentals. Airbnb is a fantastic way to travel and affords a little extra income for those who are not wealthy living in Atherton many on fixed incomes, widows, and who's to say who is coming in your driveway if one is watching? How can you determine if it's a friend with a suitcase coming to visit you or a paying guest for a few nights. As long as there's no trouble or nuisance and we do have nuisance laws on the books and noise ordinances, there should be a way for travelers Who need to be in this area but cannot afford $350 a night for the motel on El Camino to stay in a private home as the guest of the owner. Of course the owner should be present and sleeping in the dwelling and the whole house should not be allowed to be rented. That just invites trouble in my opinion but a couple of rooms for rent once in awhile sounds like fun to me. A wonderful way to meet new people.

First, I would seriously question whether the Fire District can and should be offering up their services where a tree is simply creating a hazard on private property as Peter suggests. If the tree is creating a hazard across a right of way or a threat to personal safety, sure, but if it has fallen or is going to fall on your shed or into your swimming pool. Call your private tree service - not the Fire District. If it's an emergency however, the Police Dept and Public Works would respond in the same way as the District in the event of any emergency. Without charge. But if the Town tells you that your tree is dying and will create a hazard if it falls or that your vegetation is blocking the water course and will create flooding, gives you a time line to take care of it - and you don't. If it creates that hazard and the Town has to use its forces to correct the issue - you SHOULD be charged.

As to AirBnB - let sleeping dogs lie. If the use is creating a problem for a neighborhood, I see no reason why it should be allowed to continue unabated (noise or parking or parties). But, if it's quiet enjoyment - let it be. There should be rules to follow and permits to pull and fees to pay. It costs money to monitor and enforce just like any other home occupation or business.

Let see - if you see a fallen tree that is creating a hazard, blocking a public right-of-way or blocking needed emergency access to a structure do you:

1 - call the accounting department
2 - wait until someone is hurt or an emergency response is needed that requires immediate access
3 - clear a path?

I vote for 3

for what its worth:

The fire department doesn't clean up trees on private property. They clean up trees that are downed "creating a hazard, blocking a right of way or impeding their access to a structure". Not sure where you got private property out of that.

Awesome. Thanks Peter. I will make sure to call the Fire District to remove my tree free of charge the next time one threatens to fall on my arbor in the back yard. A tree that is dead or dying is a defined as a hazard under most laws. That means the Fire District will remove it for FREE! Awesome! I will spread the word.

A dead or dying tree is a hazard. Peter doesn't seem to be making any distinction between public or private.

for what its worth:

I think Peter has made a pretty clear distinction. Unless the tree falling on your arbor is going to create one of the hazards listed, the fire department isn't going to take care of it for you.

When an organization has SERVICE and PROTECTION as its MISSION then the accounting issues are quite secondary.

The beauty of the fire SERVICE is that individual firefighters are given broad discretion to identify and mitigate threats.

MPFPD Mission Statement:


"To protect and preserve life and property from the impact of fire, disaster, injury and illness."

Peter - no arguments here, merely advising that the altruism and mission of the Fire District and other public safety agencies (to include public works) have limits. Immediate threats to life and safety are within the mission of all public safety agencies and within the mission of public works activity. Accounting issues are always secondary. I suspect, because the district's own codes classify the failure to eliminate a fire or life hazard after being duly advised as a misdemeanor that the district is not in the habit of correcting those deficiencies for free on the public dime. Hence, if there is dead or dying tree on private property threatening a structure and the District and/or Town is advised and notifies the property owner neither will be removing that tree for free and if it falls in the ROW the agencies involved will clear it but will ultimately seek reimbursement given the advance notice of hazard to the property owner.

FWIW - You just don't understand. The firefighters do not carry citation books or invoice books in the fire engines. They arrive on a scene with superb judgement, excellent skills and proper tools as do whatever is necessary to protect and preserve life and property from the impact of fire, disaster, injury and illness. Their judgement as to the immediacy of a specific hazard is not driven by a rule book but by hard won experience. Weed abatement is treated quite differently from a tree that is blocking access to home where someone is on life support equipment.

Ugh - sometimes it's like talking to a wall. I get that point Peter. I am not arguing the judgment of emergency response personnel - police, fire or public works. They are all excellent emergency first responders. Tree hazards are not weed abatement. I am saying that if the agency - district, town, or otherwise - advises a property owner of a hazardous tree thru due and proper legal notice and that tree falls, ultimately that property owner may be responsible for the damage that tree causes to include the cost of removal by emergency response personnel. That all happens after the fact.

I don't want my tax dollar paying for the negligence of my neighbor who does not maintain his or her property after being noticed by my town or Fire District of a hazard that they are legally obligated to correct. I hope that my town or Fire District is chasing down those folks to reimburse for that negligence. That's my issue - not arguing the quality, skillls or judgment of first responders.

FWIW -" I am saying that if the agency - district, town, or otherwise - advises a property owner of a hazardous tree thru due and proper legal notice."


Wrong. These judgement are made by highly trained professional on the spot and they intervene WITHOUT providing due and proper notice.

This discussion is highly relevant because the Town of Atherton has just released an RFP to determine:

" If there were not a Fire District and the Town were responsible for providing fire
services independently, what would the cost of those services look like? What are the
options? Would an additional fire station need to be built and staffed? If so, where
would it be? What would it cost? What is the annual cost? What are the long-term
cost models? What are the added liabilities? Are there any added benefits?"

Do the citizens of the Fire District who happen to reside in Atherton want to replace their world class fire agency with an account driven, pay for services model represented by the fallen tree issue?

I don't think so.

Peter - are you suggesting that the District would enter private property at the request of a property owner to help that property owner determine if a tree (dead or dying) is a hazard and if so, the District would removed it free of charge - on the spot? Or are you suggesting that the District would, without notice, if a neighbor complained or district personnel identified what they believe to be a hazardous dead or dying tree on someone's private property would enter that property without notice to remove that hazard?

Both sound a little problematic to me. The discussion has nothing to do with whatever the towns RFP is as it is current district policy conversation not hypothetical.

Also - can we stop with the colorful descriptions of the Fire District? Everyone truly appreciates and acknowledges the quality service delivery and response of first responders. We are having a conversation about policy, not about quality of service or throwing barbs at other agencies. When you do that it makes me less apt to have the conversation with you.

FWIW - Feel free to opt out of the conversation, that is your privilege.