By Julia Scott 10/25/2009
PACIFICA - Pacifica's troubled trash hauler may be purchased by Recology if the city agrees to award a franchise to the San Francisco-based company, formerly known as NorCal Waste.
A history of delinquent franchise fee payments and shoddy accounting by Coastside Scavenger has already prompted city officials to announce they would request proposals for a new trash hauler come 2012, when the company's franchise agreement expires. That could change sooer than expected now that Coastside Scavenger is courting Recology to purchase its assets and take over its operations, provided the city agrees to sign the existing franchise agreement over to Recology.
City Council members will vote on whether to enter into negotiations for such an agreement with Recology at a meeting on Monday.
Coastside Scavenger and its sister recycling company, Seacoast Disposal, are owned by local resident Louie Picardo and have served Pacifica for 50 years.
The company will owe the city roughly $650,000 in unpaid franchise fees as of Oct. 31, according to Administrative Services Director Ann Ritzma.
Some of the company's checks have bounced over the years.
In June, the city attempted to draw on a $250,000 line of credit Picardo put in place in 2007 to keep the company afloat, but discovered that only $100,000 was available.
A carefully-negotiated agreement with Recology would resolve those money issues, said Pacifica City Manager Steve Rhodes.
"Coastside Scavenger is going to make it whole in the mix. However they work it out, that's not an issue for us. They have to pay the money before we will agree to the assignment."
Picardo approached Recology about the sale a few months ago and the city suspended its process of soliciting proposals from new trash haulers as a result.
"It would be crazy to run both processes simultaneously," said Rhodes, who added that he'd just as soon avoid the legal costs and "contentious" discussions that often accompany a request for proposals.
If the City Council decides to enter negotiations with Recology, Pacifica will hire a consultant to help with the negotiations and analyze three years' worth of audited financial statements to make sure Recology is on solid financial footing.
The city also plans to hold a public meeting to hear from residents about the kind of garbage and recycling services they want.
In addition to its rate increases -- a recent survey found that Coastside Scavenger was charging more for its service than any other trash hauler in San Mateo County -- residents have complained that the company doesn't make curbside composting and recycling easy enough.
Rhodes said the city will ask Recology to provide single-stream recycling and improved composting services, as well as keep rates down if possible. In return, he expects Recology to ask for a new franchise agreement that extends past 2012.
"If I were coming in and buying something, I would want a little longer-term agreement to amortize my investment. That will be one of the issues we negotiate over," said Rhodes. "Of course, you try to reduce your rates but the potential of trying to do that when we're trying to increase service is not certain."
Recology already serves neighboring San Bruno and is poised to greatly expand its presence on the Peninsula.
Starting Jan. 1, 2011, Recology will replace Allied Waste as the trash and recycling service provider in 12 other communities in San Mateo County, including San Mateo, Burlingame, San Carlos and Redwood City.
"We're close by. It's another logical place for us to offer our services. Pacifica seems to want the kinds of things that we can help them do, such as reduce the number of things that go into the landfill," says Michael J. Sangiacomo, president and CEO of Recology.
Sangiacomo addressed local concerns over layoffs in the transition, saying Pacifica employees would have to reapply for their jobs but the company would not be looking outside the company for replacements.
"To the extent that the business needs employees, we're prepared to keep the ones they have. Does that mean every employee will continue to be needed?" We're not planning on going in and making mass layoffs," he said. "I can't guarantee everyone will like working for us. They'll have to make their own decisions."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
Letter sent to City Hall today:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members -
Tonight, please do not miss your opportunity to bring back a competitive RFP process to the solid waste hauling franchise agreement. You have a chance to un-do a great disservice that was done to the Council and rate payers back in 1997, when Coastside asked for and received an extension of their franchise agreement.
Pacifica deserves to have vendors competing for our very lucrative residential and commercial business. In this economy, we will have several solid wate haulers bringing us their very best rates and services, competing hard to have this franchise. I believe Coastside's competition will not have a profit based on 8% of their operating costs, with no incentive to cut costs, they will not charge us the highest rate in the County, and they will run a smart business that the City can partner with to improve our rate of diversion. Recology is welcome to submit in the RFP process, but to allow them to walk in and take over is an affront to the citizens of Pacifica.
Pacifica residents deserve to get the most for their money with the best services available including curbside composting and single stream recycling.
Pacifica rate payers have been ripped off, the City has been ripped off, and Coastside Scavenger has been a poor partner for our City.
I urge you to not take the easy way out of this situation you are in. Find Coastside in default. Deny the assignment. Do not allow Coastside to again profit from the City it has so eagerly abused. Please advocate for us. We pay the MOST of any city from San Jose to San Francisco, and we have been paying that for years. With top dollar going for below rate services, we need to ask WHY. We were overcharged for years. In all ways, the residents and the City was abused by this franchise and held hostage for more than 15 years.
Bring the franchise agreement to an RFP process immediately with fair and competitive bidding that will assure that residents have the best services, with rates that are equitable to the rest of the county. Let the other companies show us what they can offer. Recology included. But deny the assignment, which just will lock us in again without seeing what is available.
It will be difficult and not as easy as just saying YES to the assignment, but it will be better for the citizens and for our Pacifica.
Thank you -
Kris Perez Krow
i think the city has been equally as poor a partner, if that is indeed true. to take 75k of citizens money, each year, put it in a remediation fund for the benefit or us citizens, then not to be able to account for over $700,000, is unfathomable. so if anyone thinks coastside is a poor partner, look to the partner they had.
"...reduce the number of things that go into the landfill," says Don Michael J. Sangiacomo, president and CEO of Recology Garbage and Olive Oil Inc.
Do ya think Sangiacomo is referring to dead bodies?
Weez in da "family" don't like anyonez opposin' us.
From a 1995 review of a Coastside Scavenger rate application, which disallowed $100,000 in charges overall, until 2006 when the last finance director caused an audit to take place, the city didn't exercise any oversight.
There's just no question about that.
I think an RFP, as Kris is advocating, is the only way to protect the ratepayers. Spend a little more now, save a hell of a lot later.
RFP? Nevva hurdavit... Oh yeah, room for pizza. I've always got room for pizza. What are you Emde, some sort of wiseguy?
I thunk I'm gonna rethunk that "reduce the number of things that go into the landfill" proposal of mine when it comes to this Emde babbo.
Lionel,
the only problem I see with an RFP is you'll probably never find a waste hauler that will agree to the same terms and same community commitment - over the course of time - that Pacifica had with Coastside (their delinquent payments notwithstanding). No company will agree to lock into a 10 or 15 year contract without the flexibility to raise rates. They may come in and lowball for an RFP, but we have seen time and time again (like with the police station) that low offers come with the caveat of change orders and cost overruns.
I wish the city luck, but this may be a case of there being no green grass on any side of the fence, so Pacifica may be better of with the hauler they know.
I just betcha anything and everything our rates will go sky high with a new GB Hauler.
Kathleen,
I think you'll see the traditional model of rates going lower to win the contract, then getting jacked up every year to cover costs.
Wagner makes another great point, the city is a partner in this business who takes their cut before anyone else. Rates go higher, city makes more money. Don't be surprised if they go along with that, as they did with the rate hikes on your sewer bills.
I think we should borrow a page from the playbook of our good friends at the GGNRA. "We [the GGNRA] have removed all garbage cans from Mori Point because we want people to take their garbage home." -Chris Powell (GGNRA Spokesperson; Aide to Supt. Brian O'Neill; In Response to Inquiries; Winter 2007)
How about if Pacificans stop putting garbage cans in their homes? Then they would have to take their garbage elsewhere - say Colma. Problem solved...
I like that idea PTP. I hate it when I have no garbage, I still get charged. Why is that?
Coastside did just raise our rates, Jeffery. Well, not as much as they wanted to, remember we got a "discount" because they had been overcharging us for so long and that was their way of making good on the overcharges. Kathleen, our rates are already sky high compared to neighboring cities, about 25% more than Daly City w/o the better services. Highest rate from San Jose to SF...and apparently no one seems bothered by that. Yes, the City counts on the franchise fees as a revenue source, but how good are those fees if they aren't being paid. The RFP process is a competive process that will bring the best services and best rates to Pacifica. It is common that the prevailing party, that is awarded the franchise, will pay the RFP process fees. There is no detriment to the City of Pacifica, or to the rate payers, to proceed with the RFP. It is in our best interests.
I'd like to see an actual chart of that before I beleive what a blogger posted, no offense.
Why can't we fix what we have? Is it that much of a mess? I do not like it when people lose their jobs in a time of such economic turmoil. I also am happy with the current service. So, if they are in a neg status with the city, isn't that the fault of the city? Fire them and hire someone who will stay on top of city services. What makes us think the next GB Hauler won't pull the same? New GB Hauler-Same City Council. It isn't balanced. It's like raising a child. Let them get away with everything they may wind up in jail, but the parents of that child are still out there raising the rest of the kids.
Other than the charge we get even if we have no garbage, I am happy with the serivces of the current GB Hauler. We are the consumers. I think I will go to the GB Hauler pay my bill and ask some questions.
We lose every time when competition is eliminated...Requests For Proposals(RFPs) are of paramount importance in a contract for services with a municipality that truly represents the ratepayers. Without it, there is no protection...no incentive to do better...no accountability for what it is being done ...
Let's have bigger and much better companies than Recology compete for the coastside business...If we don't and we extend this deal with Recology, we can be hit up for more money for less services... what choices will we really have?...Think about it...whomever we allow to move in with us is going to set up housekeeping for a long time, a very long time and we shall be "held hostage" if things should "go south" on what we thought was their deal with us...
Norcal rebranded themselves with this new Madison Avenue monicker, "Recology" a few months back...However, the real truth of the matter is that they have been doing their business all these years under the name of Norcal...but, when you start googling Norcal and the notorious scandal that they were involved in San Jose and subsequently, because of that scandal , what they cost the City of San Jose a few years back, you'll find out only too quickly why "Norcal" has now changed their name to "Recology"...but, a garbage company by any other name still stinks as bad...especially this particular one...
Yes, it was Norcal that was in the scandal that cost the City of San Jose millions and millions of dollars because of "back room deals" with the Mayor, Norcal and their subcontractor. Check out the Santa Clara Grand Jury Report, wherein they reveal not only what went wrong in San Jose, but what went wrong in the County of San Bernardino with Norcal contracts and ratepayer rates and service problems. Read about the fact that a Norcal Employee went to jail for 18 months for bribery in San Bernardino and that the County fined Norcal over $6 million and then told them not to even think of responding to an RFP that they would put out in the future for years to come...yes, that's our little Recology's (Norcal's)past... if I were Norcal, I would rename myself...actually I would leave town, but that's not what they want to do ...they want to come to town, our town and we need to be very aware of whom they are and what they've done in the past, for history does have a tendency to repeat itself if one is not paying attention...
Recology(Norcal) must be laughing you know what off in their Board meetings about the "dumb easy pickin's on the Coastside", through this "back door entrance" that they are being given to take over our town...Granted, a contract for garbage requires a certain amount of years for the haulers to amortize their equipment etc. but most contracts are for 5-7 years...To give a hauler more than 7 years raises eyebrows, as it did in the mid-Peninsula this past year with an extremely lucrative 10 year contract handed to Norcal...
It's one thing to bail out Picardo, but to roll over and let this Recology aka Norcal have more years on the contract than Coastside had originally, is in effect putting the ratepayers in our city in a terrible non-bargaining position. Issue the RFP, in the long run it will be cheaper for the ratepayers!
Norcal promised the City of San Jose that there would be absolutely no rate increases if they got the contract...They had a substantial rate increase every single year of their contract, in addition to the millions that the City had to pay because of the "back room deals" in which they had been involved with the Mayor....If you check you'll find that they didn't get the renewal contract in San Jose, oh they might say that they didn't submit a renewal bid, but do you wonder why? It was all they could do to get out of town...
Now, apparently emboldened with the fact that they got the contract with the SBWMA in mid San Mateo County, they are now looking to take over the world,or at least our little part of it...and that's no garbage!Perhaps their expansion will be like "Sherman's march through Georgia"...ISSUE THE RFP!
I've always wondered if Chris Porter had some kind of blackmail material or something... So many people who hold council's feet to the fire (as they should) on every other way they spend our money, seem to want them to just give Coastside a pass. I've never heard any rational or reasonable argument for why this shouldn't go out to RFP.
I'm happy to see a new garbage collection service coming in. While better than it used to be service-wise, compared to other places I've been, Coastside always seemed overly-expensive given the level of service.
I've had enough weird billing problems with Coastside, and heard stories from others with similar problems, to think that their financial situation has a lot to do with Coastside's bad bookkeeping. It's not the city's fault.
It's only fair to open this up to an RFP. If the end result was that we paid the same rates, but got single-stream recycling, I'd be satisfied. Other companies seem to have the wherewithall to do that, whereas Coastside looks to be too small to provide that service.
I can't believe that you'd have weird billing problems. After all, they've invested so much in those invoices with the state-of-the-art, 1950s-era, carbon paper technology. Maybe our new hauler can upgrade us to a mimeograph machine.
"No company will agree to lock into a 10 or 15 year contract without the flexibility to raise rates."
Jeff, You weren't here long, but you and Kathleen should back to the Riptide archives and read my articles on CS and be glad that they are disappearing. Rip off is the appropriate term for the highest rates in the county.
We need an RFP for a competitive bidding process--this contract's worth plenty, and we need to make sure our city council and staff don't take the easy way out.
I hate riptide.
Lionel,
Even the city manager is on record expressing his concerns about the RFP process.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_13635107
"It would be crazy to run both processes simultaneously," said Rhodes, who added that he'd just as soon avoid the legal costs and "contentious" discussions that often accompany a request for proposals.
When it comes to an RFP, we should be careful of what we wish for.
Looks like just another Pacifica mess. Why can't we ever get it right? Who are these people running this city?
As a capitalist, I would prefer that there was some competition through an RFP process. I guess that Coastside has made such a mess of things for all the reasons listed in the article Jeff references (delinquent franchise fee payments, a history of shoddy accounting, bounced checks, failure to maintain their line of credit, etc.) that the city is over a barrel and will have to accept whatever deal they can to be made whole on all the money they're owed.
What a mess. For once, I don't see how the city is at fault in this, and I also don't see how anyone can absolve Coastside from blame.
I don't think anyone is giving Coastside a pass here, but its naive to have full faith in the RFP proces to resolve all these problems. The process is costly and opens up a whole new can of worms.
The city is also a partner in this business and exercised a tremendous lack of oversight as long as they were getting paid the franchise fees. The city attorney also chose to hire (with City Council approval) an outside attorney to conduct the last round of negotiations which cost the city and Coastside collectively about $200,000. And remember the big "recycling" scandal, where Coastside was not given credit on recycling because the city failed to maintain the proper paperwork for the audit? Coastside also does a lot of community work for free that constantly gets overlooked.
I'm all for whatever process gets the people of Pacifica the best service at the lowest price, I'm just not ready to storm the castle with an RFP because I understand its not a complete solution.
"city oversight" What is that?
Good argument, Jeff.
I don't buy the claim that the city was a "partner" with Coastside. Coastside was a provider of services, and the city was a consumer. The city had no operational responsibility for Coastside, and I roll my eyes when people who endlessly complain about the city's incompetence in anything business-related (which includes me) then turn around and blame the city for not being involved enough in the management and oversight of Coastside.
Coastside was a poorly-run business. When they started having financial problems, they tried to paper-it-over for as long as they could, rather than working with the city to jointly solve the problem.
When Council friends get special breaks, we bitch and moan, which is exactly what we should do. Yet when when our friends DON'T get special breaks, we bitch and moan, which is exactly what we SHOULD NOT do. Coastside's been given plenty of breaks up until now, and they shouldn't get any more. Nor should Recology.
An RFP is appropriate. There's no reason to grant a no-bid contract in this situation.
Steve,
I'm not arguing for or against an RFP, just being realistic about the set of problems that arise from the RFP process. Yes, the city should do its due diligence, but let's not have the false expectation that an RFP will solve everything.
The city is a business partner with Coastside, taking its 8% cut before anyone else. There is paperwork the city must keep track of on its side of things. Most other municipalities have a much more shared relationship with their garbage haulers, including covering the cost and responsibility for billing and accounts receivable.
also lost in this mess is the fact that for some reason (maybe Lionel can enlighten us), the city attorney took away the city's ability to file a lien against a homeowner for delinquent payments. I have to peruse my notes, but a large percentage of the money owed to the city by Coastside can be reflected in delinquent payments to Coastside.
There are good arguments for a no-bid and good arguments for an RFP. Its not about special breaks for people I like or don't like, its about making a prudent business decision.
And this wasn't about "money" or delinquent payments 2 years ago when Vreeland and Skyfield USA were wheeling and dealing to get Coastside out of Palmetto so they could "develop" the OWWTP/Hilton Library site.
No one's claiming that an RFP will solve all the problems, so we should retire that straw man. However, I am claiming that giving a no-bid contract to a company that can't meet its obligations is stupid. I'm also claiming that more competition usually leads to better options for things like price and service level agreements.
The only reason the RFP process would be costly is because the city is hiring another costly consultant, rather than having staff do their job, and if you want to make that argument, I'm behind you 100%. Organizations conduct RFPs all the time, and it's usually not costly and doesn't require outside consulting services -- it's even less of an issue when dealing with the public sector because open records mean that it's pretty easy to copy from hundreds of other municipalities' RFPs using Google and a few hours of time.
This whole "lack of oversight" argument sounds suspiciously like you're blaming the victim. Madoff's clients were foolish to think they were getting something for nothing, but that doesn't negate the fact that he was swindling them.
is the company that can't meet its obligations Recology, or Coastside? I believe the estimate for the RFP was given by the city as $150,000. That may include consultants and I am inclined to agree with you that forcing city staff to do their jobs is a viable alternative.
I don't think "lack of oversight" is blaming the victim. How many times do I have to reiterate that the city is a business partner with Coastside? The City of Pacifica is not a client of Coastside, they are a business partner. PERIOD. I'm not blaming Madoff's victims, I'm blaming his business partners. The city had every right to question the garbage rates, the service, and force open the books for Coastside as a business partner, but as long as they got the checks they didn't care.
Keep in mind 2 things please: no one said BOO about Coastside until the city started hammering them during the re-negotiation of the contract last year. There was no talk of delinquencies, no bounced checks, no unpaid franchise fees. That all happened this fiscal year.
And the curious timing of the emasculation of Coastside occurred when City Council was getting hammered on lack of development in downtown Palmetto, and when Vreeland and Skyfield USA were making their power play for control of the OWWTP and Hilton Library properties.
Pacificans have been complaining about Coastside's low quality of service given the high rates, and sweet deal with the city, for years. The complaining didn't start last year.
And if Pacifica is a business "partner" with Coastside because it takes 8% of Coastside's revenue, then we might as well say the federal and state governments are "partners" of every business in California, since they take 20%-30% of every business's income in taxes.
Steve Sinai said:
"...then we might as well say the federal and state governments are "partners" of every business in California, since they take 20%-30% of every business's income in taxes."
So what's your point?
You're claiming that Pacifica is a business partner of Coastside because Pacifica takes 8% of Coastside's income. State and federal governments also take a cut of business income, but I don't think you'll find many who would characterize them as "partners."
Could be we're just arguing about the definition of "partner." To me, a business partner actually is involved with running the business, which doesn't describe Pacifica's relationship with Coastside.
I never heard anybody complain about Coastside, until I started reading riptide. But, it's labor/union. They do things differently, ya know?
Perhaps you have never run your own business. Government is very much the partner in all businesses through rules, regulations, statutes, fees, taxes, etc. What is even more disturbing is the latest trend of government ownership of private sector businesses, e.g., banks, car factories, insurance companies and coming soon, the entire healthcare sector: Washington Post Article
"To me, a business partner actually is involved with running the business, which doesn't describe Pacifica's relationship with Coastside."
Absolutely correct Steve, Pacifica's neglect of its monopoly contractor worked to the city's advantage as the 8% rolled in. Who cares that we pay the highest rates in the county, we've got that 8%!
Lack of oversight worked to the city's (our?) advantage.
We badly need an RFP and a competitive bidding process, not the city council sloughing off the long-term assignment upon a new and unvetted carrier. Think biodiesel.
"Perhaps you have never run your own business."
Who, me? I've been making my living running an incorporated business since 1989. I sure as hell don't consider the state or federal governments my "partner," although I don't consider them the enemy, either. I'm pretty sure you're not going to find many people who run their own businesses who'd consider the government their "partner."
If there are other business-people here who disagree with me, please chime in. I'd just ask that you post under your real names.
Kathleen, I remember years ago people complaining about Coastside's high rates, and Coastside said they needed to charge the high rates because Pacifica had hills. When it was pointed out that other cities on the Peninsula had hills, the story changed to Coastside needing to charge high rates because they needed special trucks to deal with Pacifica's skinny streets.
It's always been one excuse after another, and it's gotten old.
I think you guys need to go back to business school to understand the difference between a corporate tax and a franchise fee, and the relationship between a government entity that collects a corporate tax and one that collects a franchise fee from a corporation.
Whan asked why I closed my business and retired at an early age I reply that I was saddled with a business partner that:
1) never came to work
2) constantly complained about the way I ran the place
3) Refused to invest any time, effort or money
4) At the end of the year insisted on 50 percent of the gross profits
At that point I am normally asked who that idiot was. I reply, "The government". So I did the only rationale thing I could do. I fired them!
Steve, I asked some GB Hauler bout the truck thingy. Yes, different trucks for different types of streets and hills. Think about it. Government cracking down on all things; Labor /Union employees (not the mob bosses) thinks this administration is their friend, until they have real grieviences, then they get the boot. State run now!! You have no right and must comply. Bigger/Compact/More Efficient Trucks=less people we need to hire. Raise rates on the peeps to pay for it. Raise rates on the peeps=less money in their pockets=more jobs lost=more peeps on gov dole=more votes. That's the "Change" 2007 is when the Democrats have taken over the House and stopped doing the Peoples work and DID NOTHING. Making promises to the George Soros's 527 groups (Nancy Hall, Maybury, etc. etc. ) It's all gone down hill. But they like it this way.
I encourage everyone to post comments, even under anonymous or a pseudonym. I am much more interested in what you have to say than who you are.
In response to Steve, the question you might want to be asking yourself is, "Am I a partner in my government's business?"
Jeffy, simply paying franchise fees doesn't imply a partnership. The franchise fee Coastside pays Pacifica does nothing more than grant Coastside the right to operate the garbage concession in town.
We're not talking about opening a McDonald's franchise. If we were, then I'd agree on the partnership aspect, because McDonald's spells out in great deal how each of its franchisees operate, monitors each restaurant closely, and they share things like advertising expenses.
That's not what's happening between Coastside and the city. The city collects its fees from Coastside, and that's it. If you want to interpret the term "partnership" so broadly that it includes this type of relationship, so be it. I wouldn't.
There's nothing I've seen that says the city has any shared management responsibility with Coastside in running the garbage collection business. That's why I think it's incorrect to blame the city for Coastside's problems.
Council screws-up plenty, but the desperate need to blame them for anything that goes wrong in the city gets ridiculous at times.
Steve,
I am referring specifically to the ability of the city to place a lien on a homeowner's property for their failure to pay their garbage bill, which the city attorney opted to change after the Dave Carmany affair. And the ability to negotiate rates on behalf of the citizens. There's also shared paperwork, and required audits which were overlooked.
It is a more cozy relationship than simply picking up a check. And I truly believe the city attorney inserted herself (or by proxy, an attorney at cost to the citizens) during negotiations which deteriorated that relationship between Coastside and the City Council.
But let's go back to the information I posted about Vreeland and Skyfield USA and the timing of the Coastside witch hunt.
I think doing business in this city with your nice partner, the city machine and legal department isn't so easy.
Example, last year the city changed the way collection of those who don't pay Coastside is handled, 1) from City through County, reimbursed to Coastside in 1 year, to 2) Coastside handles all: the collection and the liability.
Reason for default: The city collects their highest in San Mateo county gross franchise fee based upon a hypothetical number, not those who actually paid. Chris said there are lots of people not paying their trash bill this year, but from what I understand the city still requires payment.
The year prior, it probably didn't help that the city settled the "green waste dumping" issue legally, rather than through the expected over-the-table method. That cost the city, Coastside, all of us money. Coastside is a small business constrained within financial limitations set by the city who takes the highest franchise fee off-the-top (gross) than every other city in San Mateo County.
As mentioned by Patriot Jim, taking money off-the-top and aggravation from your partner that does nothing to help translates in to higher net cost, and impaired function.
"I am referring specifically to the ability of the city to place a lien on a homeowner's property for their failure to pay their garbage bill,..."
No, what you're doing is flitting from argument to argument hoping to find one that works.
well just because you can't keep pace with my argument doesn't mean I am flitting. My contention is that the city is a business partner, you said NO and brought up the example of the government taking corporate taxes. I was responding to YOUR argument by pointing out the city can do something (file a lien) on behalf of the corporation (Coastside) that the government cannot do for your corporation. If you have accounts past due, can the government file liens on your behalf to help collect that debt? NO. But the government also can't collect taxes on money you haven't been paid.
So the relationship between the City of Pacifica and Coastside is more than just a municipality collecting a check from a trash hauler. And the city collects 8% off the top, whether or not people are paying their garbage bills. In a way, the city is a strong-arm business partner.
I've also provided several examples where the city has more responsibilities with Coastside than just a laissez-faire check collector. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but you're starting to sound like people on the Pacifica-L list who just argue for the sake of arguing, then when confronted with facts and persuasive arguments to counter what they want to believe, they start backpedaling into attacking the nature of the argument itself.
You're better than that, Sinai.
Coastside is huge scam that has been robbing the people of pacifica, they play with the weights of all the recycling that comes in! they had absolutely no intention of ever composting any of the greenwaste they sent to the owners ranch! and furthermore Christine porter is a pathological liar who flipped off the city councilman because she is a psycopathic unstable, unorganized scam artist! walk in one day and look at her desk and then you decide
Anonymous coward above, this is ridiculous "hate speech", with with zero logic or justification, and certainly doesn't describe the honorable person I know as Chris Porter.
Regarding the grass, leaf cuttings which were transferred to Picardo Ranch by the approval of the city general manager many years ago, apparently at that time doing that allowed a win cost savings for the city, and a win mulch benefit for Picardo Ranch. That's why it happened.
There is no justification for your defamation and libel now directed toward two honorable individuals. You need to be removed from this blog.
Post a Comment