Sep 27 2012

OPINION: 16 MTRC Recommendations Were Unanimous

A Letter Points Out the 16 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC) Recommendations to the Piedmont Post

To the Editor of the Piedmont Post

Dear Sir,

Not having heard from you, I was pleased to see that you not only printed my letter, but took the time to add an editor’s note disputing its accuracy – the first such note I’ve seen in any newspaper in my 46 years.

Since your note indicates that you were unable to find the 16 unanimous MTRC recommendations I referred to by searching the City website, may I direct you to pp. 6-8 of the MTRC report, which can be found on the City website at

These pages contain the MTRC’s unanimous recommendations, including those related to controlling the growth of City expenses and reducing the risk of unplanned expenditures on major capital projects such as undergrounding. While they are not numbered individually, there are at least 16 of them.

Mayor Chiang also compiled a matrix of these same MTRC recommendations along with those of the Undergrounding Task Force (appointed by the Piedmont League of Women Voters) and the Council’s Audit Subcommittee.  This matrix can be found at

I’d appreciate a clarification of your editor’s note to reflect the sources above in next week’s issue.

Thank you for your attention.

Tim Rood, Member of Piedmont’s Budget Advisory and Financial Planning Committee

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

2 Responses to “OPINION: 16 MTRC Recommendations Were Unanimous”

  1. Thank you, Tim Rood and all those with the courage to fight the status quo and work for accountability in our messed up City government.

    Our area has lost several wonderful neighbors who could no longer afford the high cost of Piedmont, including taxes, and had to move. Their children were high achieving students and the adults were active volunteers in their neighborhood.

    It is a shame to see who benefits and who loses to live or work in Piedmont.

  2. I’m wondering which City records the editor [of the Piedmont Post] searched, obviously not the report itself, unless the editor’s search was limited to looking for a list with the numbers 1 – 16. I’m also wondering if the editor will be able to explain why it felt such a note was called for without doing any investigation at all, like contacting the writer to ask which recommendations was he referring to. Obvious bias under the guise of an editorial note adds nothing to the debate and serves only to polarize.

Leave a Comment