According to today's Tribune, Our Children's Earth Foundation has filed suit against the City of Pacifica for its endemic environmental contamination from Calera Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Details to follow, so gather your tar balls while ye may . . .
Tribune: Organization sues city over sewage spills
I especially liked these comments from City Manager Steve Rhodes:
"Pacifica City Manager Steve Rhodes agreed the complaint from OCE is counterproductive toward meeting the same goals on both sides.
"Sometimes I wish we would spend less on attorneys and more on projects. Our goals are all the same. I'd rather be spending money replacing laterals. I get a little frustrated." he said."
I get a little frustrated, too. I wish this city had spent money replacing laterals instead of bilking the Sewer Enterprise for $700,000 per year to fill holes in our no growth General Fund.
82 comments:
Win it rains it pours.
It's for the children. It makes me happy.
#1 fast-growth, trendy industry in America - create a mom&pop environmental organization and sue someone.
Steve,
OCE has been around since 2001 . . .
Don't worry property owners will be paying this bill, the $2.3 million and any others of those mom&pop enviro lawsuits Steve mentioned. Meantime, multi-problem fixed?
Anyone want to take a guess on what our increased sewer "fees" will be next year and ongoing? At least city legal outsourcing will be back in business. Thanks again not, City Council.
Kathy,
I am willing to bet the sewer rate increase next year will NOT be the 3% promised when they jacked it up 18% 2 years ago.
Jeffy, the news that OCE(F?) was suing the city got me thinking about the new Wildlife Equity Institute, and how easy it was for that to come into existence. It seems like you file a little paperwork, create a website, and your new environmental group is in business.
That was the inspiration for my comment.
Also, if the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is planning to fine Pacifica $2.3 million, why can't OCE wait to see what happens there before suing the city?
I'd imagine the Water Quality Control Board and Pacifica will negotiate some kind of settlement that at least somewhat deals with fixing the problem.
If it goes to court it will be thrown out. No one has any money. They are using old scare tactics, that don't work in this economic climate. And, if the city even considers raising property taxes, that is a sure fire way of waking up the masses. I just read another depressing report on the unemployed. Back to- Rad Environs; Ways to piss off the people; lawsuits and taxes. Hey, I think I just came up with a new idea for a blog-should list all the stupidest lawsuits and taxes that prevent any real work and progress from getting done. We will send this list weekly to all elected officials and on-line news outlets.
You never know what will happen in court, Kathleen. Even if it eventually gets thrown out, the city will have to spend money it doesn't have until it reaches that point.
I remember during the city budget sessions earlier this year, when I pointed out to the council how out-of-whack our city's legal budget was compared to other cities, both DeJarnatt and Digre said it wasn't our fault. Big, bad developers were suing us.
Now that it's not a big, bad developer who's suing us, but instead an environmental group turning around and biting us on the ass, our local hippies probably don't know what to think. I've noticed Riptide hasn't posted anything about this lawsuit.
Well, I say , they just lost their case by your statement. The rad environs prevented any development=no new money for the city=no money to repair city infrastructure=infrastructure failing=SF Bay Regional suing city, but will give city a break if fixed-negative-rad environs suing city for unsafe environment for the children. Doesn't anybody get tired of this game. Rad Environs....have they nothing better to do? They must play a lot of seek and destroy.
well Wildlife Equity is clearly a fraud. LOL. OCE has been in the game for a bit longer, and their track record gives them more an air (pun intended) of legitimacy in fighting pollution and contamination of the environment. They don't strike me as serial litigators looking to rid the planet of the human virus. (Am I the only one who reads the CBD and Earth First literature and thinks of The Matrix?)
Yeah, probably. Can you suggest some reading material on them.
Kathleen,
if you click on the link I provided in the article for Our Children's Earth Foundation, it takes you to their web page. Strange thing is I think the lawyer (Sproul?) who filed the lawsuit works in the same department at the same college as Brent Plater.
Oh really! Gee, there goes that darn train again.
"They don't strike me as serial litigators"
You obviously didn't look at their website much. You make lots of good points, Jeff, but it hurts your credibility when anyone who helps you take potshots at council is considered "legitimate" and "good".
Anonymous, what point are you making, why don't you just state your OCE findings?
Your comment "hurts your credibility when anyone who helps you take potshots at council is considered 'legitimate' and 'good'." Really? Isn't that kind of like you controlling your neighbors, friends, acquaintances, family, people down the street, people you know or don't know?
Political suppression or oppression may appeal to some, with the caveat to state issues or enact actions the way you would personally direct or control them, but other people really do express their opinion in their own way-- that's reality.
The economic undermining of our city caused by this city council governance is no joke and we are not in civic control to "Fix Pacifica" except to protest, and replace these leaders in 2010. How polite shall we all be about this untenable situation?
It's hard to tell, but it seems like you're using lots of words to say that a) people have their own opinions and b) our city council sucks. If that's correct, I agree in both cases.
My only point was that saying CBD shouldn't be threatening suits, while saying that OCE's suit is justified, while also complaining about the city's legal expenses seems disingenuous and hypocritical. Maybe that isn't what Jeff is saying, but it comes across that way.
Anonymous, the issues you poise are different. CBD concern is "endangered species" frogs and snakes; CBD has threatened to sue San Francisco (good luck), they are not suing Pacifica.
The OCE suit against Pacifica may be justified, because of reckless and irresponsible, several year WWTP violations and ongoing sewage pollution spilled into our environment (waters and land).
If you click on the "Enforcement" link on OCE's website, you'll see lots of legal actions they've undertaken. Plus, if you look at the "Who we are" page, you'll see that there are more lawyers than anyone else.
OCE are serial litigators.
I agree with Anonymous's observation about who is considered "legitimate" and "good" here. It often seems like rational arguments count less than whether you're someone's friend or enemy. You can make the most intellectually-flabby, inane, pointless statements imaginable, but you'll be supported and cheered on as long as you openly bitch about City Council and the state of the city. All that does is give the blog an aura of nuttiness, to the point where we won't be taken seriously.
I guess we should start by considering WHAT each organization is suing (or threatening to sue) for:
CBD threatened to sue San Francisco if they didn't convert an active and profitable golf course to a federally subsidized frog and snake preserve.
OCE is suing the City of Pacifica for contaminating Calera Creek and the Pacifica Ocean with raw sewage, and demanding they fix their sewer plant.
apples and oranges. OCE seems to have a consistent record of filing suit after tangible damage has transpired, whereas CBD seems to have a consistent record of filing suit as a bargaining tool to grab more land for their vision of the world.
And if you read my other comments on the thread about Millwood, you'll see I'm not opposed to the city exercising its legal right to file suit, but I question their judgment in when they do and against whom.
I'm getting real tired of defending my comments to people who seem to enjoy making baseless assertions under claims of being meaningful, mainstream, sane, or relevant when they don't even bother to read the totality of what I have said.
I don't think cognitive arguments based on facts and intelligent research are "intellectually flabby" but maybe Sinai goes to the same school of debate as Ian Butler.
Jeffy, it sounds like you approve of the OCE lawsuit against Pacifica.
While the lawsuit makes the Council look bad, which is good - those of us who still live here are on the hook for the legal costs, which is one reason I'm not going to pat OCE on the back. I also think they should have waited to see what the outcome of the negotiations between the city and the Water Quality Control Board was before they sued, which is another reason I'm not going to give them credit for choosing their lawsuits intelligently.
Although I'm pretty pissed at the Council's policies and ineffectiveness, I won't personally demonize them. I disagree with Ian on the golf course, but as far as I can tell, he's recently been the one trying to debate the issue rationally.
Steve,
I don't welcome this lawsuit any more than I am happy about Maureen Lennon's lawsuit, or Mike Angel's lawsuit, or Dave Carmany's lawsuit. I'm not personally demonizing someone by pointing out their practices and decisions as leaders have consistently cost the City of Pacifica millions of dollars. As long as the same people are making these decisions, the city will continue to get sued.
While we have no control over OCE, they do have a consistent record of suing cities who fail to protect the health and welfare of their citizens by allowing these types of sewer spills to happen. Our city leaders clearly failed the citizens in this regard.
And maybe OCE has no faith that negotiations between the City of Pacifica and the RWQCB will produce any tangible improvements. The City of Pacifica has been fined how many times by the RWQCB? And these events keep happening?
And I don't consider using false premises, faulty science, and gotcha antagonism part of a rational debate.
Steve and Jeff,
Nothing works with this Council.
Pleading, cajoling, rational discussion, verbal assault, being caught red-handed, filling the chamber, writing letters, NOTHING!
Since elected, they have consistantly followed their whims, pleased their friends and ignored common sense or good business practices.
Now Pacific is laid waste with little to no chance of recovery.
If it takes a lawsuit to make them (and the public) wake up, then so be it.
I'd appreciate it if the people celebrating this lawsuit could pay my share of whatever tax or fee increase the council decides to inflict upon us to pay for it.
Law suits seem to be the city's life blood "saving account", as described by Councilmember DeJarnatt-- also, provides city legal job security.
An aggressive lawsuit which ultimately wins, may yield the city as much as 60 cents on the dollar spent (North Pacifica LLC and League of CA Cities), not counting additional staff time, loss of city development income, financial damage to the opposition, and ill will to all concerned.
The OCE lawsuit will affect property owner sewer fees, so Steve does have a point. On the other hand, maybe property owners will finally have had enough and vote this irresponsible 7 year city council out of office in 2010.
In getting rid of the city council blight and accommodating Scotty's small fee might be a big win for all of us.
The people cheering this lawsuit as a means to denigrate council remind me of the Republicans who celebrated the United States losing the Olympics because they thought it made Obama lose face. It's petty, partisan, and doesn't have anything to do with what's best for the community.
well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, Scotty, but I don't think anyone is "cheering" this lawsuit so your comparison loses a little weight. The fact is the City of Pacifica had a 7 million gallon sewer spill that the RWQCB felt was preventable. OCE is suing because of the gross contamination to the environment and continued human health hazard of this plant.
It seems the overwhelming factor to these issues has been the willful neglect of this City Council to properly maintain and improve this sewer plant on behalf of the citizens they represent.
What is best for this community is to fix the plant, or possibly replace it, as I have been saying for years. The plant has never worked properly. Instead, the city diverts money for repairs and upkeep, continues to raise your sewer rates, and exacerbates the problem by inviting lawsuits from environmental agencies.
If this City Council chose to underfund and underman the fire department, knowing conditions were ripe for massive wildfires, and a wildfire occurred that caused devastating damage to private property that put the health and welfare of the residents at risk . . . would you and Sinai be so quick to condemn someone for filing suit against the city because it would jack up our legal fees? How about focusing on the people who allowed this egregious event to happen in the first place?
Here's a news flash: no sewer spill and no cover up . . . no fines and no lawsuit. PERIOD.
Scotty;
No happiness here about any pending lawsuit.
We have been trying to get rid of this lousy Council for two or three rotations. They persist because they lie during campaign season and the mostly lazy public buys into it or just votes for a name that they recognize. Then there are those who don't want any development no matter what the cost and this Council is happy to pander.
Pacificans in general are not aware of the terrible condition of our city. Maybe some ugly headlines will wake people up.
I think Scotty might work for Exxon-Mobil or Union Carbide. he hates pesky lawsuits when companies do dirty things.
I'd love to get rid of this council, but I think while I regret their many mistakes, others seem to relish them. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who our options are going to be anyway. I don't see Tod as a good alternative, so all I have left is Cal. Mike or Steve, if either of you choose to run, you've got my vote.
So Lippy, are you saying that you support trial lawyers and are againt tort reform like a good Democrat? I thought you were the right-wing, multiple-personality-disorder troll that ruined the Topix forum.
"The OCE suit against Pacifica may be justified, because of reckless and irresponsible, several year WWTP violations and ongoing sewage pollution spilled into our environment (waters and land)."
Kathy's identifying this little problem is why we are opened up to being sued because business wasn't taken care of.
So Scotty, why don't you share with us your specific plan on how to save Pacifica from financial ruin. It seems like all we get out of people like you are attitude and complaints.
LOL. That's all this blog is, moron.
My plan is pretty much the same as everyone else: I'd like to add some development and associated tax dollars in Pacifica. If our current council can't do that (and it seems that they are philosophicaly opposed to that concept), then I'd like to replace them because I disagree them, not because I have some sort of personal vendetta. I'd also like to do so with without harming the community or spewing mindless partisan right-wing dogma.
So, Snotty. It would seem that in addition to hating people who sit to your right, your plan is ONLY about bringing more money in, i.e., by way of taxes. Well, that really isn't much different than the current Council, is it? Not very creative is it, either? Just more of the same old anti-Council rhetoric.
Oh, I'm sure you will have some sort of smart ass response, but your hackneyed ballad seems to only have two notes - tax and spend. Care to share with us some ideas on how to cut costs in this City? Every CEO worth their golden parachutte always considers cost cutting first since costs are more under their immediate control than revenues. Never thought about that one, did you? Go back to the engine room you bot.
Thanks... That provides a great example of the type of mindless, partisan, Fox News regurgitations to which I'm opposed.
I'm all for cost cutting as well, but if you'll take off your Limbaugh decoder ring and look at the reality of our city budget, it looks like we need to bring in more revenue. I'd rather do that by trying to bring in some development, rather than having council stick their hands in my pocket yet again. Since you're apparently all about "specific plans", what were you proposing that the city cut, by the way?
Scotty, apparently you have not been involved in watching what has happened to this City over the past 10-12 years. There have been lots of suggestions and ideas presented to this Council that have been ignored. Those bringing those suggestions and ideas have been ignored, vilified and made a mockery of. I do not believe it is a personal vendetta to point out what has gone wrong. Those making decisions need to be accountable.
Nice try, Snotty. Shift it back to me. I wasn't the one complaining, remember? Still waiting for your specific plans.... waiting.... waiting.... waiting.....yawn......waiting....
"Thanks... That provides a great example of the type of mindless, partisan, Fox News regurgitations to which I'm opposed."
What does that have to do with Sulu's comment? Scotty, please do us all a favor and get back on your meds!
Sulu, I provided a specific plan: stop stonewalling development which will lead to much-needed tax revenue. You disagreed with that plan, but when pressed on alternatives appear to be "all hat and no cattle" as they say in Jeff's new neck of the woods.
Scotty's the one with the realistic assessment of what needs to be done to fix the city. Short of someone building a big retail complex or casino in the Quarry, there are no silver bullet solutions to the city's financial problems. And yes, the city does need more tax revenue, so I'm not sure what Sulu is talking about when he snipes at Scotty about bringing in more tax revenue. The whole idea is to generate more of a tax base so that the city has some financial breathing room.
Perhaps Sulu (gee, I can't imagine who that is) is advocating continued dependence on grants and refinancing.
We certainly don't have money to rebuild the sewer plant, and it doesn't need to be rebuilt anyway. Just maintained better.
I'll be anxiously awaiting to see what kinds personal insults Sulu, et.al., will respond with, because I know I'm not going to get any rational counter-arguments.
Cost cutting.... waiting..... waiting.... waiting.... snore.... waiting....
Libtard tactic #7:
When you can't respond to a legitimate argument/point, terminate the dialogue by describing the opposing argument/point as "irrational" or "incoherent".
What legitimate argument/point are you talking about, Bush's Fault?
Wing-nut tactic #1:
Never try to argue rationally. Instead, rely on name-calling, going off on tangents, changing the subject, conspiracy theories, etc.
Wing-nut tactic #2:
Never answer a question directly. Instead, respond with another question.
Wing-nut tactic #3:
Someone say something you don't like? Don't know how to respond? Call 'em a "liar."
Libtard tactic #19:
Make sure you always get the last word even if you sound like a complete moron.
Wing-nut tactic #4:
Use little catch phrases like "libtard" and "feminazi" and think they're clever. Remain oblivious to the fact that everyone thinks you have the sophistication of a ten-year-old.
Cost cutting.... waiting..... waiting.... waiting.... snore.... waiting....
Libtard converse corollary (#4):
Attack for usage of such terms as "libtard" while at the same time continuing the usage of such epithets as "wing-nut".
Besides, Scotty, I am 10 years old. What's your excuse?
Sulu, cost cutting??? Hasn't this city seen enough cost cutting. Isn't 7 years past time to step-up to fixing the structurally deficient city budget?
As I recall something like 80% of the city budget is personnel, notwithstanding the city has been short staffed for at least 7 years. Assuming that percentage is true, that leaves 20% for city infrastructure maintenance, utilities, lawsuits and cultural/social improvement (most of which is avoided except law suits and debt). How regressive is this? Not even city hall is ADA compliant.
Yo Bell! You still out there somewhere? Hope we didn't hurt your feelings... Hey, just for being a good sport and playing along, we would like to send you a copy of Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue". Just don't "Go Commando" on us! PLZ....
Hey "I'm embarrassed to admit it's Bush's Fault 'cause I voted for him, and that's why I hide behind a fake name", are you interested in contributing meaningful information, or are you just here because you get off on insulting others?
I like to read and toss-out the occasional insult as much as anyone, but if that's all you do, it just reconfirms the image of a wing-nut as someone who can't discuss things rationally.
The term "wing-nut" applies to both the left and right, BTW.
Libtard tactic #21 – Hypocrite’s Axiom:
It’s okay for someone to post anonymously, as long as you agree with them.
Bush's Fault,
I just figured out who you are.
ha ha ha you big jerk.
Put your energy on getting rid of Jimmy V.
That's where you are most effective.
BTW I heard there are pictures in Palin's book. Why don't you just keep it for your "alone time".
Libtard tactic #6
Use misdirection to give the illusion of balance and objectivity, e.g., “The term ‘wing-nut’ applies to both the left and right” when you have only used the term to attack those on the right.
Sinai makes just as much fun of the extremists on the left. He usually calls them "hippies", but I think he's gone "wing-nut" on a few (Summer, perhaps?).
You're in great company -- assuming by "great company" I mean "other people who make very little sense and rarely back up their hit-and-run postings with any actual facts".
Hey "I post as Bush's Fault because I'm not brave enough to post under my real name," seriously - what is it you think you're accomplishing on this blog? I have yet to see you discuss anything related to Pacifica issues.
When this blog started, I suggested everyone post under their real names because I thought it would help Fix Pacifica from devolving into something like the old Pacifica-L group. It was fun to exchange insults, but no problems ever got solved, and now it's basically dead because people got sick of it. You're doing a great job of turning Fix Pacifica into a useless Pacifica-L.
There are lots of us here who like to toss insults back and forth, including me, but at least we occasionally discuss Pacifica.
Mike, do you think Bush's Fault even lives in Pacifica?
Steve Sinai said:
"I like to read and toss-out the occasional insult as much as anyone, but if that's all you do, it just reconfirms the image of a wing-nut as someone who can't discuss things rationally."
Right back at ya!
And there you go with the "irrational" pejorative again. Can't help yourself, I guess...
Libtard tactic #7:
When you can't respond to a legitimate argument/point, terminate the dialogue by describing the opposing argument/point as "irrational" or "incoherent".
Sinai, you have truly mastered #7!
3 on 1 - I like the odds!
BTW, which one of you geniuses is going to answer Sulu's simple question?
The problem is, you have yet to make a legitimate argument/point, Bush's "If anyone finds out my real name, I'm screwed" Fault.
Feel free to give an example demonstrating otherwise.
Scotty and I already answered Sulu's question. Sulu doesn't seem interested in discussing things.
Sinai:
I searched up and down this blog. haven't seen anything from you or Scotty on cost cutting. Sequeway:
Libtard tactic #5:
If you keep repeating something often enough, pretty soon you can claim it to be true.
Bell said:
"BTW I heard there are pictures in Palin's book. Why don't you just keep it for your 'alone time'."
For someone who is quick on the trigger to accuse someone of racism, you sure don't seem to have a problem exhibiting blatant sexism!
That's because I didn't come up with cost cutting... you did under one of your many pseudonyms. I suggested that our city allow and actually encourage some tax-producing development, remember? And when you were asked what to cut, you never responded, remember?
I'll say this for the 3 of you he-men: at least this time you aren't ganging up and hurling your personal attacks on a woman who, as I recall, did use her real name. In case you have forgotten, that's how this whole thing got started.
Hey Bush's "It would be humiliating if people found out my real name" Fault,
The city's cut costs to the bone. Both Scotty and I said the issue at this point is how to generate revenues. Please take an accounting class in order to understand how basic finance works. It's about revenues and expenses, not just expenses.
Still waiting for a single example of a legitimate argument/point from you, Bush's "Please, please, please God, don't let them find out my name" Fault.
Perhaps you can explain to me why the same people who complain about how much the city spends on legal expenses cheer when the city gets sued, and the city is forced to incur more legal expenses.
Or maybe you can explain the thought processes of people who think the city should both repair the sewer system and replace the waste water treatment plant, while cutting costs at the same time.
Bush's Fault;
Do you want me to out you?
Call me, you have my number (unless of course you're "busy" with Palins's book).
Let's be clear here. Scotty and the other Musketeers come on to this blog and complain about the plight of our city. The subject of this blog is FixPacifica. It's very simple--you and others encourage tax-producing development. Exactly what is tax-producing development? Do you think residential is tax-producing? Experts say that the limited amount of property taxes received on new residential development is offset and perhaps exceeded by the cost of city services to those same residents. The only exception might be the quarry because it is a redevelopment zone. However, the citizens of Pacifica have rejected every residential/commercial development in the quarry. So, keep looking for a solution. It seems there are two sides to this equation--increased revenue or cost cutting. Increased tourism in the city would increase revenues. I see someone came up with a model to increase tourism in Pacifica many years ago and it was posted on this blog recently. I didn't see any of the Musketeers even commenting on that suggestion. Why not? Because it wasn't your idea? It seems it did not have any great downside, risk or expense. How come it isn't even considered--most experts concede pet owners are BIG consumers and growing steadily. Oh well, we in Pacifica are above that--we want revenue but we really don't want traffic or people clogging up our latte stops or restaurants. What business are you proposing again? The other half of the equation (and perfectly acceptable to me by the way) is no development and cutting costs. Don't have any ideas about that either? How about contracting out the City Attorney's duties? She just farms everything out anyway and in the meantime we pay her big salary, benefits and for her clerk as well!! Not to mention Pacifica's IT guys. I only see them recommending the next package for the city to buy. Bring in a contractor once in a while at an hourly rate to run reports, make recommendations and install the packages--much cheaper than paying for these fools and their benefits. Maybe this is too much for the Musketeers--it's too hard to read all this and it gets in the way of your bellyaching...
Wow, that shut Bush's Fault up, Mike.
...unless he is "busy" with Palin's book.
Guess my feminine side just took over...
Sinai said:
"Wow, that shut Bush's Fault up, Mike.
...unless he is "busy" with Palin's book."
How's that "talking about Pacifica" thing workin out for ya? Hypocrite...
If Pacifica becomes the most dog friendly city around, that's fine with me. I think any suggestion like that is worthwhile. Not commenting on something doesn't mean opposing it.
I'd like to see something like a casino or an outlet mall in the Quarry. Even some of the local hippies I know in town, who previously wouldn't have considered a casino or anything else in the Quarry, have told me that given the city's financial predicament, they think that many of the people previously opposed to a casino would now be for it.
While I don't believe housing necessarily drains resources, I do believe Pacifica's economy is too heavily weighted toward housing, and needs to be more diversified. I'd prefer we focus on commercial development.
Glad to see you're "done" with Palin's book (for now) Bush's "It's not my fault" Fault.
Actually, my vision for the quarry is a marina. It ties in with the recreational theme of Pacifica, and the fishermen I know bay-wide all have to come to Pillar Point and travel north to fish off Pacifica (and that's a tough trip) or go to SF and travel south through the potato patch to get here to fish. It's an idea that could also garner funding set aside for public access coastal projects. There would need to be a breakwater set up, but it would be a fabulous project when complete. Seafood restaurants and bars would do well and the fishermen I know all spend $$ when they come in with their catch. Outlet stores are a waste of valuable coastal property, and the outlet mall in Colma is dying. Westlake used to be an outlet mall and when it declined they had to retool it for a different clientele. Additionally, the Internet has obviated the usefulness of brick and mortar retail. Today's shoppers go to the stores just to try things on/out and then go home and order the items online.
Besides, we can't even get a Trader Joe's here for heavens sake...I'm not optimistic any good stores would want space in the quarry.
Loved Palin's book! Can't wait for Obama's book - as soon as someone writes it for him. LOL!
Colma has a few outlet stores, but there's never been a dedicated outlet mall there. If you're talking about the outdoor mall with the Burger King and Barnes & Noble, the parking lot still seems pretty crowded every time I go there. If it's doing more poorly than it used to, blame the economy.
And I don't remember Westlake being an outlet mall. It was a run-down mall with run-down stores.
I spend a lot of time on the San Francisco forum on TripAdvisor, and lots of visitors, especially from overseas, ask about the nearest outlet malls. The visitors are very disappointed to find out the closest ones are in Gilroy, Vacaville, and Petaluma...but some still go. I'd have to imagine that people in SF would much prefer coming to an outlet mall in the Quarry, especially something like a maritime-themed one, than drive to Gilroy, Vacaville, or Petaluma.
According to the following, outlet malls are still a growing industry:
http://retailtrafficmag.com/management/propmgmt/outlet-center-growth-0129/index1.html
Thanks for coming up with a suggestion worth discussing.
BTW - Obama's already written a couple of best-selling books. No need to wait.
Outlet mall or Walmart is okay with me, whatever pays the overhead, and however low commercial class it is. Also commercial and mixed-use areas that produce tax revenue have a way of evolving.
PseudoNymph, I think the housing/service equation you sited may need further consideration since when services are easily available people also spend money generating more taxes. That was the advantage and synergy of the quarry redevelopment mix-use project (Measure L).
However, thanks to city council friends, people of this city again bought the scare and fear campaign. #1 Traffic (actually the development would have been part of the solution to fix Highway 1. #2 355 houses was the ordinance limit which was negotiable, and would have included apartments, condos, 125 proposed houses maximum (all part of the synergy). #3 the outside developer might make a profit or rip-off the city. Really, no justification for the "rip off" smear, considering the risk making a profit on a quality union built development is the way business is supposed to work, and who else would have the expertise and financial capacity to build such a project if not an outside developer?
City council and their "nothing for Pacifica" friends (some of whom live in and outside the city) worked to defeat both the last proposed quarry development (Measure L) and the prior proposed quarry development (Measure E), but remember the people of Pacifica did vote prior to develop Mori Point-- now the land of frogs and snakes, supported by members on this city council, "we saved Mori Point" (DeJarnatt).
The Peebles Corporation proposal would have been a "class act", and followed the stated "recreation" economic guidelines set by this city council. Had that development advanced we would not be defending access to Sharp Park Golf Course now. Tax revenue generated from this redevelopment zone would have produced about 85 cents on the dollar collected directly by the city of Pacifica. Duh again.
Moral to this story, do not re-elect incumbent city council members or their friends in 2010. The city might not survive anyhow thanks to their 7 years governance, and fake promises that "everything is okay", "never been in better economic shape" (city campaign 2006 Lancelle, Digre, Vreeland).
Every expert who has ever written on the subject has been a strong proponent of housing in a Redevelopment Zone. Even the Redeveopment Consultant(s) Council hired (with our money) couldn't believe there were no housing elements in our wish list. Housing is the biggest bang for the buck by far. It puts more than 90% of the collected property taxes directly into city coffers.
Do the math...
355 residences x $600,000 (average price) x 1.25% x 90% = $2,396,250 tax windfall every single year.
Now add 90% of the sales tax revenue generated by the live work spaces and urban styled commercial establishments surrounding these urban coastal residences.
Now add 90% of the TOT tax generated by the proposed Ocean Front 5 star hotel (notice it's not a City Hall).
Now add local employment which would be provided by these local establishments.
Now add National Prestige of a Platinum Leed development in a forward thinking Northern California Coastal town.
Now add enhancements to our schools, infrastructure, recreational facilities and maintence of our precious natural resourcec made possible by this potent new stream of revenue. The estimated total tax revenue generation capabilities of the Quarry were $17,000,000 per year every year.
Now subtract all of the urban sprawl outside of the quarry which would not generate a fraction of the return of the Redevelopment Zone and therefore become a non-starter.
Now subtract the huge carbon footprint of cars chugging their way to work and shops over the hill.
Oh and don't forget to add revenues from visitors wanting to fill our hotels, restaurants and shops while they hiked our trails and discovered Scenic Pacifica.
Luckily for us rubes; John Curtis, Peter Loeb, Dinah Verby, Julie Lancell, Sue Digre, Pete deJarnatt, Jim Vreelnd and a whole bunch of their really smart friends snuffed out this silly pipe dream perpetrated by an evil out of town snake oil salesman and made Pacifica what it is today.
Wow. That's specifically what I want from a development and tax generation perspective (too bad it's too late). Any cost cutters can feel free to chime in with any analyses they have. I'm all for that too, but I just think that the only cuts left in Pacifica go straight into the muscle.
POLITICAL DOWNSIZING
Discouraged by unemployment and depopulation and frustrated by politicians' inability to solve either, voters aren't just throwing the rascals out of office -- they're throwing out the offices, says USA Today.
In what western New York calls "political downsizing," communities are voting by referendum to reduce the number of seats on town councils. The movement's theory, as voiced by its founder, Kevin Gaughan: The best (and maybe only) way to cut government is to start with your own representatives.
So far the downsizing movement is confined mostly to western New York, but it's part of a national wave of frustration over big government that was illustrated this year by raucous town-hall-style meetings over health care and the rise of the Tea Party movement:
This year, all four towns that considered citizen-initiated referendums to trim their boards from five members to three have voted to do so.
They range from Orchard Park, the affluent suburb where the NFL's Buffalo Bills play, to the rural, close-knit town of Alden.
In several other communities, councils have voluntarily elected to downsize.
This month, Niagara County voters decided overwhelmingly to reduce the county legislature from 19 members to 15.
There's even talk of dissolving whole villages (which are parts of towns but levy additional taxes and have their own elected boards):
Last month, with visions of a 40 percent tax cut in their heads, the villagers of Limestone voted 3-to-1 to dissolve.
The next council downsizing referendum is Tuesday in this community of 56,000, where one candidate in the Nov. 4 election endorsed downsizing, even though it would eliminate the seat he was seeking; he won.
Downsizing is not unique to New York:
Holyoke, Mass., for example, has lost a third of its population over the past 75 years but kept a 15-seat council.
This month voters elected to consider changing the city charter and possibly reduce the size of the council.
"Everybody is becoming aware that local governments are spending well beyond their means," says Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute. "There's a sense that something's out of control."
Source: Rick Hampson, "Political downsizing is latest weapon for voters," USA Today, November 12, 2009.
Kathy Meeh,
Be careful what you ask for:
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com
Oh very good Bush's Fault, city council could be downsized, and you and some of your friends could run that petition for the ballot. With their track record we only need one council member: they could flip a coin, or default to Mary Ann who doesn't represent their failed track record.
Funny Wally Mart....this thread is getting way too shaggy, way off from the Environmental Water quality lawsuit, so I'm going to open up a City council Accountability-"Failed to develop the quarry redevelopment Zone article". Maybe some of this interesting conversation can be taken there when that posts.
Post a Comment