First column is the city, second is total sales/use tax revenues (2008), third is population (2007), and fourth is sales/use tax receipts per resident
Colma | 4,820,310 | 1408 | 3423.52 |
Brisbane | 3,343,842 | 3636 | 919.65 |
Burlingame | 6,018,635 | 27550 | 218.46 |
San Carlos | 5,206,471 | 27008 | 192.78 |
Foster City | 5,208,880 | 28912 | 180.16 |
Redwood City | 12,193,255 | 73603 | 165.66 |
Menlo Park | 4,817,197 | 29964 | 160.77 |
South San Francisco | 8,016,165 | 61870 | 129.56 |
San Mateo | 11,002,120 | 91768 | 119.89 |
Half Moon Bay | 1,404,034 | 12336 | 113.82 |
San Bruno | 4,355,326 | 40017 | 108.84 |
Belmont | 2,105,071 | 24643 | 85.42 |
Millbrae | 1,583,042 | 20685 | 76.53 |
Woodside | 387,727 | 5523 | 70.20 |
Daly City | 6,715,220 | 100882 | 66.57 |
East Palo Alto | 1,761,288 | 33097 | 53.22 |
Pacifica | 1,189,114 | 37282 | 31.90 |
Portola Valley | 113,505 | 4483 | 25.32 |
Atherton | 105,861 | 7335 | 14.43 |
Hillsborough | 72,419 | 10737 | 6.74 |
2 comments:
Nice study, Pacifica is #1 again beat-out at the bottom, except for a few wealthy residential cities, and 40% below East Palo Alto, This works well with the prior Chamber of Commerce report, and 8 year city council economic plan: Recreation.
Coastal towns? Compare to Half Moon Bay with 3 1/2 times the revenue per resident than Pacifica.
Pacifica has long had a weak commercial base.
If there is an answer in this economic collapse, I'd like to hear it.
We have better and more accessible data now, but Pacifica has been the same for much longer than the past eight (8) years.
Our school district also bounces between lowest and second-lowest funded in the county. Ravenswood in EPA is our competitor for the bottom.
Post a Comment