From City Council Meeting of 2-8-10. Anyone miss city salary increases?
Agenda Only http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3698
Agenda Summary Report (detail): http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3693
"In November 2009, three of the bargaining units had salary increased determined by a salary survey that would bring each position to the 'average total compensation' of comparator positions in comparator cities and cities of similar size or function, (Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Menlo Park, Millbrae, San Carlos, San Bruno, and South San Francisco)." (item 5, Summary Report, page 11 and the range of scheduled salary increases pages 14-17). So, that's it, Pacifica is similar to those other cities. Its only fair that these city salaries would be brought-up to the "county average". Its equally fair that our city economic viability be brought-up to the "county average" (similar to those other cities) to pay for city services and payroll.
Not only is this city not providing comparable "county average" tax revenues for its population, in the current severe recession there's the government vs. private sector rub. Salaries of most private citizens are not improving, and "merit pay"-- what is that? Over the past several years benefit cost (including pensions) have been increasingly paid by employees themselves where these benefits exist. And, in this business climate more likely private company employees are facing pay cuts, hour cuts, losing benefits-- if not losing jobs. Its a "worst every" recession, businesses are not thriving, those surviving may be stagnant if not failing. This city has projected a $14 million dollar 5 year loss, yet in union contract negotiations from 11/09 "we could do nothing else", is this believable? Five year additional debt, here's a 5 year old playing Bach's Minuet in G major http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEoVtIxFJ2U&NR=1
From Anonymous this blog (2/10/10, 8:03PM "Clock Tower"), Reuters: "-- In the United States, average civilian federal wages per full-time employee were $79,197 in 2008, compared to private sector wages per full-time employee of $50,028, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Including benefits, total compensation per employee was $119,932 in the public sector compared with $59,909 in the private sector sector http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0315776620100203). There may be higher level technical expertise reasons for the federal government vs. private industry salary gap, but government 40% higher salary and 100%, higher the total compensation is a lot. At first glance without an in depth comparison it seems that states, counties and cities follow a similar pattern.
Locally more than a year ago Lionel Emde and Bill Collins spotlighted the need for government pension reform, including in this city. And as Lionel has also commented in difference context "...nothing seems to change". With this city council, rather than improve and help the city its Bach's Minuet in G major http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDuAFeIvlg&feature=related . They are out-of-touch, and have not listened.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
111 comments:
This is totally unrelated to this post, but did anyone hear about the cops blocking off Highway One northbound in front of Vallemar Station and pulling their guns on a bunch of kids this afternoon? It sounds like it caused a huge traffic jam, which I imagine will only get worse as the Mavericks people head home. I'm wondering if anyone knows anything, or if we're going to have wait to read about it in the Trib on Wednesday.
Isn't that backwards? Since when do cities provide tax revenues for its population?
As far as the salary survey, if it's written into the union contracts, what's your complaint with what the council did at this meeting? What would you have done if you were in charge?
Well Anonymous, skateboarding is a crime after all.
Everyone else can afford a new car stereo. But it is the skateboarders who are really killing our frogs and snakes.
Since you brought it up Richard, again City Council and their cronies have repeatedly blocked tax revenue opportunities for this city-- and nice behavior, showing up at meetings and giving-out certificates for volunteering while promoting 8 years of "nothing for Pacifica" is not an economic advantage for the people of this city. City council knows how to promote those "pet" projects, you know trails, a flaky biodiesel plant, trying to convert the ocean view old WWTP into a city hall-- stuff like that.
On the other hand, this city council did promote a tax revenue plan last year: Measure D (sales tax to the people), replacing the 5 year temporary Fire Tax (tax the property owners). City council and their friends have worked very hard to defeat development in the quarry 2x, and the old WWTP 2-3x; and through various forms of spin they have prevailed. Since the early 2000's not developing these two areas alone has probably been a 100,000 million dollar loss of tax revenue for this city and the people of Pacifica.
Richard, in a deep recession what would you have done with regard to union contracts? Supposedly the city "negotiated", but it looks like not trying very hard when the contracts themselves show 2%-3%, and the outcome includes city ascribed "merit pay" and pay increases from 3% to 15%. Do you really believe that all 4 unions made a flat-out no deal in this economy, and if they did how is it that these increases beginning at 2% became 3% to 15%?
$100M seems a little high. How do you see that kind of revenue from those two developments?
Merit pay generally is a requirement for accomplishing pre-established milestones (like achieving the next level credential). That is, generally not discretionary.
You can negotiate all you want, but if a contract is already signed, you can't make the other party do anything other than what they've already agreed to.
Richard, two business development projects in important locations of the city bringing-in city tax revenue from the early 2000's, and spinning-off additional foot traffic = a city able to pay its bills, rather than faking-it year-after-year with a huge debt which compounds. $100 M works for me, quarry is re-development, producing tax revenue at about 85 cents on the tax dollar. If you like to estimate a less amount, no problem, these developments didn't happen, instead the city got the big zero: nothing for Pacifica.
"Worst economy" recession and "nothing can be done?" Or, is it the city didn't try hard enough? I'm questioning that nothing could be done, and observing business was done at the city council meeting in the usual minuet style. How many times have we been shafted before with that little dog-and-pony show?
The City employee union contracts range began at 2% (WTTP), the city memorandum of understanding indicates salary increases are paid from 3%, not much but 1% doesn't seem accounted for.
Within the 3% to 15% total, merit pay is included, could be as high as 12% above salary. We do not have that specific per employee information, nor do we have criteria established for merit pay. Of course you could be correct that merit pay is based upon attained Certificates, but merit pay is commonly understood as additional salary based upon above standard job performance. In a deep recession, however, why would any city pay merit increases, or if they did why would these increase be more than a few percent.
Finally, salaries have been newly adjusted to the a city average within San Mateo county, namely Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Menlo Park, Millbrae, San Carlos, San Bruno, and South San Francisco. Since Pacifica is at the bottom of San Mateo economic charts, that would be another pay increase.
BONANZA! Union increase, merit pay, county adjustment. We need a city economy to pay for this.
The contracts are public documents.
We can argue numbers all we want, but the fiscal direction we are going in is unsustainable. If someone's got an analysis that shows it can be sustained, I'd really like to see it.
I reported on Riptide that only two of ten city employee union bargaining units had settled with the city on proposed contract concessions. There appears to be no visible movement in the direction of fixing the problem of an unsustainable budget.
And the "county average" wage formula, that's a good joke. You didn't see any concern for the "county average" when it comes to garbage collection rates being set at the council meeting!
It strikes me as odd that the same people who would so easily excuse Coastside when it failed to meet its contractual obligations would at the same time chastise council for living up to the terms of their collective bargaining agreements.
Scotty, you have a point, the city screwing-over citizens in both instances, approved by city council.
Richard, I think individual personnel contracts are not public document, otherwise names and dollar amounts would have been enumerated--but, you are welcome to try to get this information from the city. You might inquire with the city clerk or finance department.
This government salary/total compensation (particularly pensions) issue is what Lionel says it is, an escalating cost spinning way-out of-control, and growing annually even in a deep recession.
Twice the total compensation salaries and growing paid by those who make half the total compensation and not growing. How long does that work? Maybe Scotty can figure it out for us.
Sadly, I don't have a silver bullet, and as I've said numerous times, I disagree with almost all of the no-growth policies of the current council. That doesn't mean that I have to characterize the council members as "bad" people who aren't trying to do what they think is best for Pacifica -- a viewpoint that is childish and lazy in my opinion. Like many have tried to encourage at the national level, our democracy would be better served if we were able to disagree without being disagreeable.
What this 8 year city council has governed-over was not in the best interest of "all the people", otherwise Palmetto, the quarry and other areas of the city would have been developed and the city would have a sustainable economy and infrastructure improvement...anyone with an IQ of 89 can figure that one out.
Beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt, without revisionist history or amnesia there was an alternative agenda as citizens of this city we were strung-along-- doesn't that kind of outrage you? I think it should.
In retrospect if not observed prior, we know that "never been in better economic shape" was an ongoing, calculated, camouflaged lie. Tell the people what they want to hear, do something else (in this instance nothing, block progress). That only worked for centuries in far-off places like "Ireland".
Kathy, the union contracts with the city are public documents.
It's also insulting (and therefore pointless) to suggest that those you disagree with are of below-average intellect. I take no offense, but it cannot possibly help gain agreement.
Finally, it's Ireland, no quotes, and calling city staff and council members liars really does no service to the credibility of your argument.
It's also insulting (and therefore pointless) to suggest that those you disagree with are of below-average intellect. I take no offense, but it cannot possibly help gain agreement.
I'm not sure but are you saying you believe the city has a sustainable economy and infrastructure? Or do you believe the city can have a sustainable economy without developing these properties? I have to agree with Kathy that the numbers don't lie, nor do the endemic budget deficits, eradication of city staff, and constant tax grabs from the citizens in the last 8 years. To believe this city council is capable of creating a dynamic and sustainable economy would take a rather significant sidestep from reality.
Well a lot of other cities are asking their city employee unions to sit down and renegotiate their contracts, are they all negligent? I don't know.
But one thing one should consider in this situation is that this practice of Ann Ritzma and city staff ramming these increases through the Consent Calendar without any public oversight needs to be questioned, and hopefully changed. This is far from the first time City Council has voted - without the availability of public response - to grant contractually obligated raises and optional "merit" raises for the unionized city employees.
Until you read the contracts, you don't have any way of knowing whether the council had discretion over the adjustments.
Jeffrey, no, I'm saying that insulting people you disagree with by calling them of-below-average intelligence is no way to win an argument, much less support for your cause.
Until you read the contracts, you don't have any way of knowing whether the council had discretion over the adjustments.
well if it is coming up for Council approval, they can at least discuss them in the open public forum instead of jamming them through the Consent Calendar.
Jeffrey, no, I'm saying that insulting people you disagree with by calling them of-below-average intelligence is no way to win an argument, much less support for your cause.
I don't think Kathy was saying people who disagree with her are below average intelligence. I think she's saying to believe this city council has worked towards a sustainable infrastructure and economy flies in the face of all the facts and evidence, so to think that you'd have to have some cognitive issues.
The public has the right to comment on items on the consent agenda, and can ask that it be pulled and discussed.
"What this 8 year city council has governed-over was not in the best interest of "all the people", otherwise Palmetto, the quarry and other areas of the city would have been developed and the city would have a sustainable economy and infrastructure improvement...anyone with an IQ of 89 can figure that one out."
"I think she's saying to believe this city council has worked towards a sustainable infrastructure and economy flies in the face of all the facts and evidence, so to think that you'd have to have some cognitive issues."
Jeffrey, now you're joining her in saying that anyone who disagrees with the two of you must have below-average intelligence.
And you wonder why you can't round up more support for what you're selling.
Insults do not win hearts and minds. If anything, it's a sign of weakness in the facts or reasoning to resort to attacks on people who disagree with you.
If you think this City Council has worked for a sustainable economy and functioning infrastructure, make your case. I'm not worried about rounding up support for what we're selling because the truth sells itself.
How well does insulting customers work when you're selling real estate?
"This house is perfect for you, so to think otherwise you'd have to have some cognitive issues."
It doesn't matter if you're right when people stop listening because you've called them stupid.
When you're ready to make your case, the blog will still be here.
Wow! Arguing with Nancy *cough* Richard *cough* Hall *cough* Sandune.
Learn the Internet People. Don't Feed The Trolls.
Lame
Richard, the structural issues of this city are important, real, and have zero to do with your "feelings" or whether the rest of the world is playing into your confusion game.
I think you are needlessly or purposefully complicating and mixing-up issues. And, if not go back and re-read what I said in comments of 2/13, 9:42 pm.
If you care to get personnel information from the city, good luck-- not my concern, not my interest. The Ireland comment was addressed to "Scotty", try to figure that one out. The reference to IQ had to do with what it takes for a city to "achieve a sustainable economy and infrastructure improvement." Even a dummy can figure-out -2 +-2 doesn't = 4.
If you don't care to discuss the merits of denigrating your audience, perhaps you'd be willing to dig up one or more of the contracts to see whether there was any council discretion, or whether the pay adjustments were ministerial?
Union contracts are not personnel data. Union contracts with the City are public information.
Still waiting for you to make your case, Richard.
Jeff said "I don't think Kathy was saying people who disagree with her are below average intelligence." Maybe Richard.
Again Richard, you may want to get the payroll increase information from the city, what's stopping you? The range of union pay increase is in the agenda summary posted on this article.
By getting these personnel records you should also be able to see the 1) the union pay increase, 2) the add-on merit pay, 3) the add-on upgrade pay (to the county "average"). Then, compare 4) the actual current pay to 5) last year's pay. Maybe you'll produce an article report, and share with all of us on this blog. Now that's productive, thanks Richard.
"Richard" decended from Montara Mountain to deliver us from evil.
But I still think he's Nancy Hall.
I still don't understand the Ireland reference.
Ireland is Bankrupt
"I don't understand the Ireland reference"
That's why Jeff is much smarter than most people...
Well, Kathy, aside from it being a weekend, I'm comfortable with the staff report. I read it the day after it was posted. You're making a big deal about what you perceive the meaning is behind certain phrases in the staff report. That's why I'm suggesting you take a look at one or more of the contracts. I suspect you'll see terms in there that account for each of the elements that got your attention. I suspect you'll see that the council has no real discretion to alter the pay actions if certain conditions are met.
Why? Because that's how these things are generally written. Collective bargaining usually results in pre-arranged agreements about how things will go, often tying pay to cost-of-living indices or salary surveys. There are usually specific pay schedules for advancement in qualifications.
Until you've read a contract or two, some of this may seem foreign or unlikely, but it's normal. That's why it doesn't surprise me to see it on the consent agenda.
But since it bothers some people, I mentioned that the public has the right to comment on items on the consent agenda, and to ask to have them moved to the regular agenda. "Every notice for a special
meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the legislative body concerning any item that has
been described in the notice for the meeting before or during
consideration of that item."
@ Richard Saunders blah, blah, blah.
Richard you are great with words and only words. I have not read anything of substance in any of your comments. Would it make it better for our city economy if some of the council's critics complimented coucil members before citing time after time, specific real examples showing the coucil members have done absolutely nothing to promote growth or developement in order to increase our tax base? I am acquainted with a couple of the council members and happen to think they are very nice people. What does that have to do with the fact that their performance for the past 8 years has been dismal to this city's economic well being. As far as contracts go, I was in the shipping industry for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a number of unions willing to renegotiate contracts during economic downturns. Yes,anyone with an IQ of 89 can figure it out. The unions may be helping their members by renegotiating contracts. Doing nothing will ultimately hurt those union members who get laid off due to the fact that their employers run out of money or go bankrupt. It wasn't too long ago when the United Auto Workers union, faced a similar fate. They realized that it was better to give up some in order to save a possible total ultimate destruction, due to bankrupcy. As far as "merit" increases, I am to steamed to even comment! Like Jeff said, state your plan! I have read several possible positive suggestions from people like Jeff, Kathy, Lionel, Steve and even Kathleen. However, time after time you accuse them of not being civil or agreeable. I will finish with a preamptive strike. Richard, you are a terrific orator! But you are full of hot air!!!
Well you really only have to look at Half Moon Bay to see another fine example of how poor fiscal management and "contractual pay raises" end up costing a city (and its citizens) millions of dollars. First they bungle the Beachwood settlement (fighting a coastal development and losing big time), then as Jerry Hill was trying to help bail them out with AB650 and provide some relief, the night before the vote HMB City Council votes 4-1 for a "merit increase" for the City Manager of almost $50,000.
All this AFTER they had laid off over a dozen employees. The bill failed and most legislators cited this example of fiscal irresponsibility as their reason to tell HMB to stuff it. Now they have a $15 million bond debt that will cost the city $32 million over the next 20 years.
For Pacifica, these "merit increases" did not happen under the former finance director who alleges she was fired for pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of the city attorney and the complicity of city council.
And as much as Julie Lancelle cites "Rovian" tactics by the opponents of Measure D (who formed this blog), people weren't up for approving a 1-cent sales tax after the city council approved $150,000 in merit increases for city staff in the middle of the global economic meltdown.
Word games are great but they don't pay the bills and Richard has used an age old tactic in the community of running circles around an argument as a form of distraction, instead of getting to the core of the issue, which is City Council can negotiate concessions from the unions for its own financial solvency. Many other cities have done just that.
The city was willing to hire an attorney last year at a cost of $100,000 to stonewall negotiations with Coastside Scavenger (which cost them about $150,000) . . . but they can't get the spine to negotiate with the unions like everyone else?
Jeffrey, I'm glad you're looking at HMB. I've been posting links about their fiscal crisis here for a while.
The Beachwood bungle had more to do with not appealing than anything else. Even Pacifica has prevailed on appeal in some of these, and the judge's ruling was novel, at best, in choosing a valuation based on what the developer might have made had his development gone perfectly.
They laid off 19 people. They're now looking at more layoffs, and this after giving substantial consent agenda pay raises to the interim city manager and one other top person, both are interim consultants. That's fiscal irresponsibility.
Now, what do the Pacifica contracts with the unions say about whether there was any latitude with the pay adjustments?
As to negotiating with the unions, how much leverage do you really believe the city has? That doesn't mean they shouldn't try, nor do I know that they haven't already been doing that through their negotiator(s). But seriously, how much leverage does the city have? Threaten to lay off more police and firefighters? That wouldn't go down well with the electorate. This is a tough spot, and it is not as simple as "get the spine to negotiate".
Well I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you about Beachwood. I had this discussion with Dave Burruto (Chair of the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee). Whole world of difference between Beachwood and Fish & Bowl, and I love all the people who said HMB should have appealed Beachwood but none of them would have been on the hook for a bigger loss if the appeal didn't go through.
Beachwood is a classic example of coastal obstructionists throwing every wrench at a developer to prevent him from developing on property zoned for development, losing in court, then crying about how unfair the system is. Coastal Commission isn't out of that fight either from what I have read. But really, crippling HMB's economy for 20 years was worth getting into a property fight with Chop Keenan?
Yet even amidst these classic screw-ups, HMB's leadership had a chance and a white knight in Jerry Hill and they completely shanked it by approving an excessive wage increase for the city manager. That didn't sit well with the fiscal conservatives in Orange County, whose approval they needed.
As to what leverage the city has, I'm wondering if you missed Julie Lancelle's column in the Tribune where she pretty much engaged in unfair labor negotiations by publicly threatening to cut jobs if the unions didn't budge and help close an $825,000 budget gap with concessions.
Seems like it isn't the leverage, but the competency of those pulling the lever. Based on my conversations with Daniel Grimm of Peebles Corp, I'd say its city leadership (with the exception of City Manager Steve Rhodes, who should be allowed to manage the city) specifically Jim Vreeland, Julie Lancelle, and City Attorney Cecilia Quick who cannot negotiate anything with anyone.
I don't include Ann Ritzma because she's probably looking for a cushy job with the San Mateo County Labor Council for all her good work.
Leadership starts at the top, and the elected officials. I love how people like Kathy Meeh and Lionel Emde take all the flak for commenting on it.
You know my teenage daughter used to throw temper tantrums all the time, and my wife and I would ground her and take away privileges and it didn't seem to work. Finally, we would just snicker and laugh when she had a meltdown and surprisingly, that got her to stop. Maybe I will do the same of critics who act like I am to blame for Pacifica's dismal financial conditions and inability to get concessions from the unions.
"For Pacifica, these "merit increases" did not happen under the former finance director who alleges she was fired for pointing out the fiscal irresponsibility of the city attorney and the complicity of city council."
Are you sure about the lack of merit increases, Jeff? It's become a common feature of public employee contracts.
Most of these current contracts were signed in 2008 and (as correctly noted) rammed through under the radar on the consent calendar. Staff reports, with three exceptions in two years of agendas that I looked at contained no details of the contract.
One would have had to:
A. Go to the public meeting, having previously requested that the item be pulled from the calendar for discussion and hope that details would be revealed as requested.
B. Try to find the contract on the city's Web site. Several people say that that's not easy to do - some top staffers' contracts were not there.
C. Request the contract under a Public Records Act request, pay the copying fees (25 cents per page),and go pick it up at City Hall.
Sorry, that's a process of obscuration, not open government in 2010. It should all be there for people to see online BEFORE the public meeting at which it's on the agenda, and employee contracts should never be on the consent calendar. The contract's impact upon the taxpayer should be discussed in open session.
As to the raises in the current contracts: Yes, they are increasing as per the terms of the contract. The council and Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Ritzma appear to have made little progress in going back to the unions and effectively expressing to them that we have to do something and everyone is going to be feeling some pain over it.
The letter to the employees that then-Mayor Lancelle penned last September did some real damage in the relationship between management and the rank-and-file. Better to say nothing than insert one's foot into the negotiation.
Lionel, thanks for providing some actual data.
I agree that going to meetings prepared is a good way to provide citizen oversight. Doing a PRA is not burdensome in most cases, and you can find out the cost prior to committing to pay for the duplication costs.
As to whether the city has been trying to renegotiate, guess which month this was on the agenda:
Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Teamsters Union Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Pacifica Police Supervisors Association; Police Management Teamsters Local 350; Teamsters Local 350 Management Unit; Confidential Employees; Fire Fighters Local 2400; Teamsters Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors.
Are you sure about the lack of merit increases, Jeff? It's become a common feature of public employee contracts.
Sorry Lionel, I meant the ones rammed through the Consent Calendar. I had them in quotes and probably meant to qualify that statement.
Jeffrey, yes, we will definitely disagree on Beachwood. Failing to appeal guaranteed loss of leverage with the plaintiff.
"...my teenage daughter used to throw temper tantrums all the time..."
Proving again that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
I believe there was some kind of deal worked out where the Chopster would take less money from HMB if they didn't appeal the decision.
The risk HMB would have taken if it appealed was that if it lost the appeal, the city have ended up owning Keenan a whole lot more money than they did before the appeal. HMB took a "cut your losses" approach.
There was certainly no guarantee that HMB would have won if they appealed. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of court decisions are overturned on appeal.)
Appealing would have created more risk with the plaintiff if the city lost, and more cost to the city. Its easy to play Russian Roulette when the gun isn't aimed at your own head.
Hey, weren't you one of the guys during Measure L who kept saying vote NO and make Peebles come back to the table once the city had more leverage, were you? We should get a poker game going. Texas Hold 'Em. I would call your bluff all day long . . .
The risk? Ha! The ultimate payout HMB is giving is over $30M. The judge's ruling was ridiculous, something the Pacific Legal Foundation clearly loves, but hardly based on sound damage assessment principles. Since when does someone get to claim damages on what might have been had all things gone perfectly? The award amount presumed that the developer would have built the projects for what the developer claimed, and would have profited by the amount the developer claimed. That's not damages. That's speculation. There are ways that courts assess damage awards, and that's not one of them.
The court completely discounted all manner of things, and the city's own attorneys told them early on that the ruling could be challenged on several material fronts.
Yes, you're right, Jeffrey, there was some kind of deal worked out. One where the developer got a ton of money with no more pushback. Appeals generally reduce or overturn rulings. The city caved, even though appeals are relatively inexpensive.
Sorry, didn't notice it was Steve saying there was a deal.
I'm happy Jeffy and I confirmed what the other was saying in regards to a deal.
The losers in court cases always complain about how the judge got it wrong and that there was a miscarriage of justice.
It's easy to tell other people that they should risk their money. If Richard lived in HMB, which I doubt, I wonder if he'd be so willing to gamble with that city's money.
Steve, I urge you to read the ruling. It was "novel", at best. Jurisprudence seems to have taken a back seat to ideology, and the judge clearly took out some personal ire on HMB. I was halfway through reading it when I knew HMB would most certainly appeal. It costs very little to try, and the avenues of attack on the ruling were pretty obvious.
And the city's own attorney presented similar conclusions to the council in open session.
The decision to not appeal was a shock. The state legislature hated the pay raises, but the decision to not appeal was also major in guaranteeing no bailout from the state (in addition to setting a questionable precedent which would have bypassed all environmental laws for the proposed development).
The bad ruling was already a reality. It was not a gamble to appeal. The possible outcomes (reduced award or reversal) were substantial in their benefit and reasonable to try to achieve. What was the downside? That Keenan wouldn't have negotiated down to $18M if they got nowhere with the appeal? All indications are he wanted the money, money which far exceeded his investment.
The risk? Ha! The ultimate payout HMB is giving is over $30M.
and it could have been significantly less had they not bungled the legislative gift that was coming their way.
Wanna hear the funny thing? During the Measure L campaign, Dinah Verby wrote a "scare letter" about how if Measure L passed and Prop 90 passed, it could mean the financial ruin of the City of Pacifica. Now remember, she is an attorney that was co-chair of Pacificans for Sustainable Development and chaired the prior Economic Development Committee that disbanded due to lack of meetings. Here's what she said (in part):
Many people are relying on the City and/or state regulators to downsize the development. Unfortunately, Peebles will have an unfair advantage if, as predicted, state Proposition 90 passes in November, and Measure L also passes. If Prop 90 passes, any reduction in housing below 355 units could be challenged as a regulatory "taking". This means the City and/or state taxpayers could be liable for costly payouts to Mr. Peebles or any subsequent owner. The money damages would be based on the difference in value between the project as approved, and what he would legally be entitled to build under the rezoning (355 housing units).
So, if Pacifica decides that for reasons of traffic or public access concerns the housing entitlement at the Quarry should be reduced, and these homes will be worth $3 to $8 million each (according to Peebles), then under Prop 90, Pacifica would have to pay him quite a bit of money. The threat of a huge claim will frustrate Pacifica's ability to negotiate a fair deal for the community.
Ironically, the revenue Mr. Peebles claims his project would produce for Pacifica would be wiped out by litigation costs and/or payouts of compensatory damages. This is not an exaggerated scare tactic.
Read the full text HERE
So basically her assessment came true for Half Moon Bay in the Beachwood judgment, since it was ruled a "taking" based on the projected revenues from the proposed development.
I wonder why she didn't jump up and down tell everyone she was right?
The state legislature hated the pay raises, but the decision to not appeal was also major in guaranteeing no bailout from the state (in addition to setting a questionable precedent which would have bypassed all environmental laws for the proposed development).
see now there you go twisting facts again. There were only 2 reasons the legislature failed, and it failed because the conservatives in Orange County refused to support it. They could have given a damn about environmental regulations.
They voted it down because of the pay raise to the city manager, and they city's decision NOT to pursue bankruptcy protection.
read Bruce Balshone's great analysis:
Hill's Half Moon Bay Bailout Bill Fails
"Oddly, Hill, in a prepared statement sent to the media, blamed the demise of the legislation on Half Moon Bay’s City Council for their own contingency actions in preparing to pay the debt.
“Unfortunately, the collective actions of the City Council last week and the recent announcement that the city would not file for bankruptcy, coupled with the $20 billion state budget deficit impacted the willingness of my legislative colleagues to support AB 650.”
now if you ever want to read a REALLY bad ruling, try to dig through the lawsuit the City of Pacifica filed against ABAG when ABAG initially voted to refuse to assist in Pacifica's legal defense for the Fish & Bowl lawsuit.
The judge's ruling was that while he agreed ABAG had every right to refuse to defend Pacifica because Pacifica got itself in the mess through a series of really poor decisions and actions, ABAG needed to take pity on Pacifica because Pacifica couldn't afford to defend itself. LOL.
Appeals generally reduce or overturn rulings.
oh I would love to see the documentation on that statement.
Richard, I'm not a lawyer, but when I started my business, I decided it would be a good idea to take a business law class. If there's anything I took out of that class, it was how arbitrary court decisions were, and that you can never predict how they'll turn out.
The risk for HMB in appealing was what both Jeff and I mentioned, and the powers that be in HMB obviously agreed. HMB's only leverage after the initial decision was to not appeal, and they used that leverage to get Keenan to take less money.
If HMB appealed and lost, HMB would have had no leverage and been on the hook for much more than $17 million. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
I did go onto a legal forum to ask if anyone knew how many California legal judgments were overturned on appeal. Hopefully, I'll get an answer in the next day or so.
I've outlined what I thought you were saying the risks were -- boiling down to leaving the award where the judge initially set it, that and the additional cost of the appeal (generally a small fraction of the overall litigation expense; in Jeffrey's lingo, playing the pot odds).
Taking the case up for appeal provides leverage. Keenan could have been facing a substantial reduction or outright overturning or remanding. That's a leveraging opportunity.
Neither of you has commented on the city's own attorney's assessment that it could be successfully appealed.
I'd also challenge you to read the ruling against HMB and let me know whether you agree with the judge's logic.
Steve, did you also include in your request information on how large damage awards fare on appeal? That would have been a good outcome for HMB, too, not just overturning.
Is there a way to cancel out certain people on this Blog...or just skip them, I guess.
Richard, I asked if anyone had a guess as to how many legal judgments were successfully overturned on appeal, with the definition of successfully overturned being reduced damages or totally thrown out. I'm already being told over on the legal forum that it's an impossible question to answer, which doesn't make much sense.
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=182
I don't want to get into the game where I ask a question, and you come back and say "but did you ask this or that", and it never ends. I appreciate that you're being civil in the discussion, but I do agree with others about how you tend to drag these things out ad nauseum with endless questions.
From what I've read, the initial judgment against the city was around $40 million, and the $17 was a settlement worked out between Keenan and the city. You never know what will happen in a legal case, including an appeal, but if the appeal was rejected, the city could have found itself on the hook for the original $40 million.
According to the following story, HMB's attorney's recommended not appealing.
http://coastsider.com/index.php/site/print/3486/
I actually asked about the percentage of overturned legal judgments, not the absolute number.
geez you guys ever heard of Google? LOL.
Appeals Statistics
In the 2006-2007 court year — the most recent for which statistics are available — the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full 66% of civil cases it decided. A further 10% were affirmed with modification. The percentage of cases that were reversed was 20%. A further 3% of appeals were dismissed for some reason without being considered on the merits (this would include things like late or premature filings, attempted appeals of nonappealable orders, or failure to file briefs). (Numbers are apparently rounded to the nearest percentage, which is why they add up to 99%.)
In other words, about one in five of civil appeals succeeds in California, with a further one in 10 achieving some modification of the trial court outcome (some of that 10% involves partial reversals, while some involves modifications on technical grounds that offer little, if any, meaningful relief to the appellant.)
for further reference:
Staewide Caseload Trends
$18M, not $17M, well over $30M after including bond interest.
Note Lansing's post on that coastsider link. In particular, as I've referenced earlier, John Knox, then the city's attorney, said "that HMB’s chances of winning on appeal were 'very good.'"
They changed attorneys, and got the read on it they wanted.
As to dragging things out, let's talk about moving the goalposts or oversimplifying complicated matters. If there's a theme here, it's that it's easy to get mad and throw stones at the council (or whoever we're mad at today), but when you get down into the actual work that these people have the responsibility to do, it's usually not that simple.
So yes, every time someone says something overly simplistic and I come back with some details or questions about facts that might inform the matter, it's going to amount to saying, "Hold your horses. Do you really know enough to make such a harsh judgment?"
That's really frustrating to hear if the populace is already in the street with torches and pitchforks. That doesn't make it false, misleading, distracting, or otherwise endless.
Look at the post that started this. Complaints about how the council is hiding the ball and secretly giving away money to people who don't deserve it. Should we just nod in approval, or is it really that bothersome to ask about what actually happened, and what the contracts require, and what the council has the latitude to do?
If you want an echo chamber where everyone can be all righteously indignant together without challenge or other points of view, that's ok by me.
so to say "appeals generally reduce or overturn rulings" is true if by "generally" you mean about 1/3 of the time. So I guess it safe to say in the world of Richard Saunders, baseball hitters generally get a hit for every at bat.
By the way, the ruling was for $36.8M.
The judge, Vaughn Walker, does get overturned. For example, "He dismissed a suit by anti-logging protesters whose eyes were swabbed with liquid pepper spray, a decision later overturned by an appeals court..." and "Lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition that campaigned for Proposition 8, have criticized many of Walker's pretrial rulings, including the unusual decision to allow live witnesses. Walker also ruled that the group would have to turn over internal communications relating to its public messaging campaigns, although that ruling was overturned by the appeals court."
The 9th Circuit has even removed this judge from a case. "On this record it appears that the district court's actions reveal an appearance of an absence of impartiality sufficient to warrant reassigning this case. We therefore GRANT petitioner's requested relief and direct the Clerk of the Northern District of California to reassign this case to another district judge through the Northern District's random selection process...""
in baseball, .300 is a pretty decent average. Babe Ruth was .342.
Pot odds, my man.
can't you just be mature enough to admit that "generally" does not equal 1/3 of the time and you were wrong?
"geez you guys ever heard of Google? LOL."
Jeffy's a search nerd. I spent a couple minutes searching for statistics, but couldn't find anything as clear cut as what Jeffy found.
For whatever reason, I had the vague impression that only about 20% of appeals succeeded. Didn't want to make the claim unless there was something to back it up, though.
Following your poker mention earlier, there are times to go for it, and this was one of them.
This is kind of funny to be discussing this, given how many points I've put your way that you have completely ignored, but whatever.
In this context, "generally" could have used more precise qualification. I don't really care if it's only 20%, the word would still apply if the conditions are right. I was thinking in the context of this particular case and others I know of where there was a decent approach.
Certainly baseless appeals are going to go nowhere. A 20% chance for all appeals, better odds if the ruling has substantial weaknesses, yes, given the cost, that's worth doing.
The notion that it was hopeless to appeal requires taking HMB's word for it. No one but them was in the closed sessions. It's odd that you're using their word as absolute truth when the council up the street is treated with utter disdain.
Why would someone say they doubt whether Richard Saunders is from HMB? He knows way too much about this and is way too emotional about it not to be? Come to think of it, he never did answer whether he ever resided in Pacifica. Richard, you can answer that qurestion without revealing your identity. You also should redirect some of those annoying circular questions you targeted at Mr. Simons towards yourself. I think you owe this audience some proof of your assertion that "Appeals generally reduce or overturn rulings".
"As to dragging things out, let's talk about moving the goalposts or oversimplifying complicated matters. If there's a theme here, it's that it's easy to get mad and throw stones at the council (or whoever we're mad at today), but when you get down into the actual work that these people have the responsibility to do, it's usually not that simple."
I agree with Richard on this. Simple incompetency and bad decisions on the council always seem to get exaggerated into evil conspiracies and criminal conduct. It's the same thing the hippies did on Measure L, where all kinds of wild stories about secret, evil conspiracies on the part of Peebles and those who supported quarry development were cooked up and tossed around.
In this context, "generally" could have used more precise qualification.
like "generally, appeals fail 2/3 of the time."
I don't think HMB felt it was "hopeless" to appeal, but they had to weigh the ruling against them, and the possibility of really sinking the town in a financial morass predicated by simple greenie development obstruction. The brilliant legal minds of those with no stake in this decision notwithstanding, they did the right thing by settling. Then they did the wrong thing by giving their city manager a raise the day before a vote on whether or not the state would help bail out $5 million of this judgment.
Some decisions are pure incompetence, but to ignore the broad spectrum of what this City Council has done (and why), and why Jim Vreeland seems to be at the center of every lousy financial project or deal in Pacifica (remember Skyfield USA? biodiesel plant? $2.3 million fine for a sewer spill he tried to cover up??) while he's managed to parlay his government position into a million dollar home on Pedro Point would seem a little remiss.
Likewise, those who have followed the sage advice of John Curtis and friends have put this city into the financial hole it now faces in a mere 8 years. Many of their actions and votes have been very calculated and very deliberate, with an underlying ideology that does not bode well for the future of the city.
This is kind of funny to be discussing this, given how many points I've put your way that you have completely ignored
I'll ignore any point that is hopelessly misinformed, or a "simple clerical error", or "generally" not very relevant.
OK, you got me. Out of all appeals in California, unqualified by court, district, merits of the appeal, and so forth, generally 2/3 of appeals are not successful.
In general, I don't recommend appealing all cases. This one had a lot going for it. HMB caved.
So, did Pacifica cave on negotiations with the represented employees?
Anyone care to guess (or google) when this was on the agenda?
Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Teamsters Union Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Pacifica Police Supervisors Association; Police Management Teamsters Local 350; Teamsters Local 350 Management Unit; Confidential Employees; Fire Fighters Local 2400; Teamsters Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors.
hey don't get mad at me, you're the one who made a very general statement without regard to court, district, merits of appeal, etc . . .
and "Lawyers for ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition that campaigned for Proposition 8, have criticized many of Walker's pretrial rulings, including the unusual decision to allow live witnesses. Walker also ruled that the group would have to turn over internal communications relating to its public messaging campaigns, although that ruling was overturned by the appeals court."
well the Prop 8 lawyers are claiming bias because according to the SF Chronicle, Vaughn Walker is gay.
So . . . what point are you making in siding with the lawyers of protectmarriage.com?
Wait for it....
Wait for it....
Wait for it....
"Walker is a gay property rights bigot" -- R. Saunders
Wow, two utter misrepresentations and misdirections. Both Jeffrey and Anonymous just made stuff up and attributed it to me.
I've commented on Judge Walker's novel ruling in the Keenan case, and noted that he does get overturned and at least once has been removed for "appearance of an absence of impartiality".
That was in response to the strong pushback suggesting that his ruling in the Keenan case was carved in stone tablets, irrefutable and unassailable, all with no more in evidence than a passing familiarity with a handful of news clippings and a discussion with David Burruto.
And zero comment on this (which is actually on point for this topic):
Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Teamsters Union Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Pacifica Police Supervisors Association; Police Management Teamsters Local 350; Teamsters Local 350 Management Unit; Confidential Employees; Fire Fighters Local 2400; Teamsters Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors.
In one paragraph, absolute certainty in determining incompetence from a distance, and a Kreskin-like ability to state with complete confidence that criminal fraud and abuse of office for personal gain happened, all with no proof.
Amazing.
Richard, any judge who's been around any length of time is going to have decisions overturned on appeal or be criticized by special interest groups. If half of Judge Walker's rulings were overturned, that's one thing. The fact that he's been overruled on appeal for an unknown number of cases means nothing.
As for the "Conference with labor negotiator," I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Instead of making us guess what you're alluding to, can you please just tell us?
Steve, having a case pulled from a judge's court for "appearance of an absence of impartiality" is a rare occurrence, and a harsh ruling by the appeals court. That's worth noting. It is far from normal. I agree about the overall overturn rate, I haven't found a good source for that yet.
Early on, it was claimed that the city hadn't tried to negotiate with the unions.
Example: "Supposedly the city "negotiated", but it looks like not trying very hard..."
Example: "...they can't get the spine to negotiate with the unions like everyone else?"
When I first included the text below, I asked whether anyone had even noticed that this happened. Sure didn't sound like it.
"Conference with labor negotiator: Agency negotiator: Ann Ritzma. Employee organizations: Teamsters Union Local 856; Wastewater Treatment Plant Employees; Pacifica Police Officers Association; Pacifica Police Supervisors Association; Police Management Teamsters Local 350; Teamsters Local 350 Management Unit; Confidential Employees; Fire Fighters Local 2400; Teamsters Local 856 Battalion Chiefs; Department Directors."
Richard, please cite your source for the following asserion:
"...having a case pulled from a judge's court for "appearance of an absence of impartiality" is a rare occurrence, and a harsh ruling by the appeals court. That's worth noting. It is far from normal."
Jeff, Steve and others, really fine level of conversation and references in this dialog, although I think Richard chooses to ignore the total city salary increase beyond the union contracts.
For Richard: Most Scotsmen or any one who has traveled to both Scotland and Ireland might notice Ireland missed the Industrial Revolution. Upside, they didn't have to scrub-off smoke from their buildings in the 20th century.
Compare to Pacifica: Pacifica missed the economic revolution. Upside, we're already in recession (accustomed to nothing), city message finessing (the minuet), and double-ding more taxes and fees in the past 8 years.
Ireland comment directed to the Scotsman, probably too esoteric for the broader audience blog. Jeff got close. When I traveled to Ireland years ago unemployment was 15%, lots of people "on the dole". There following the economy improved because Ireland really did welcome businesses. Now most countries are broke, but the issue is relative to the amount of permanent economic infrastructure, improvement and advancement which occurred prior. Ireland is really quite isolated geographically.
Richard Saunders wrote: "..."appearance of an absence of impartiality" is a rare occurrence"
Richard, if this statement were true, why are so many decisions by the United States Supreme Court (the highest appellate court and judicial body in the United States), almost always broken down along political boundaries, i.e., 5-4 decisions?
Kathy, I'm not ignoring it. I'm waiting to see it demonstrated that the total increase was discretionary, and we can't do that until city hall is open. Without seeing the contracts, we haven't seen anything else that demonstrates that the city did anything other than what was required by contract.
B.D., can you find any other cites for a judge (especially at Judge Vaughn's level) being removed from a case for "appearance of absence of impartiality"? Try googling "absence of impartiality" "appeals court" and see how many come up. Some good reading about the gravity of this at Google book result
B.D., "absence of impartiality" is a legal term, a term of art. In the context of an appeals court ruling, it is not used lightly. Your comparison to the obvious partisan bias in the Supreme Court rulings, while seemingly relevant, isn't, not in the legal context in which it was used. See the Google book result above for clarification.
In re labor negotiations, this happened on the 10/26/09 agenda. But as previously stated, Ann Ritzma is the person who has been funneling the pay increases through the Consent Calendar, so once again I fail to see the effervescent point of Mister Saunders.
In re "absence of impartiality" I can only assume you are referring to the case where police rubbed pepper spray in the eyes of protesters in good old logging country (Eureka).
Judge Vaughn's apparent transgression was to seek to move the case back to Eureka where the incident occurred instead of San Francisco.
Chron Article
I'm assuming since this happened in 2003 it is relevant how?
The 9th Circuit removed Vaughn for the "appearance of an absence of impartiality" . . . which could mean a lot of things. Certainly not as bad as your making it, and it does seem to be an isolated incident on Judge Vaughn's record from 7 years ago.
Richard, I came across the following pdf: http://www.nopepperspray.org/9thcircuitorder090203.pdf where the case was discussed. From what I could tell, the term "absence of impartiality" wasn't directly applied to the judge, but rather to the Humboldt County community, which was believed to be hostile to environmentalists.
While the appeals court overturned Judge Walker's ruling, I don't get the sense that they were any more outraged at Walker's decision than any other judge's overturned decision.
I'd like to see some kind of objective, third-party evidence that says overturning a decision based on "absence of impartiality" is really that unusual.
BTW - how are people getting links to show up in their comments? Are you adding tags manually?
Tag Test
"The 9th Circuit removed Vaughn for the 'appearance of an absence of impartiality'"
Isn't the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the most overturned appellate court in the country?
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11
It's my understanding that one of the main reasons Half Moon Bay decided not to pursue an appeal was the requirement that the city post a $10M bond up front (and it was unable to do so at the time).
Can anyone elucidate? Thanks!
(yes, the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit)
In response to Bark Nuggets:
→Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay grapples with $36.8 million judgment against it
Appealing U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's Nov. 28 ruling could be a stretch for the city of 12,300, however. A court might require Half Moon Bay to put up a multimillion-dollar security bond just to fight the decision.
Funding such a bond would mean "significant budget cuts across the board," the City Council said in a joint statement last week. "Everything will be affected - parks, streets, libraries, repairs - every municipal function will face cuts."
Appealing the ruling has the greatest upside for the city, because success would mean a reversal of the judgment. But if the city loses, the judgment with legal fees and interest could well top $40 million.
An appeals court could also require the city to post a bond for 10 percent of the judgment, or about $3.6 million, said McClung, who took over as mayor a week after the Beachwood ruling was handed down.
"I want to see if there is a shot of winning the appeal before we post the bond," McClung said. "The cost of the bond alone for us, just the debt service on it, is significant enough that we have to question whether or not it's an expense that we want to incur."
Richard Saunders said:
"As to dragging things out, let's talk about moving the goalposts or oversimplifying complicated matters. If there's a theme here, it's that it's easy to get mad and throw stones at the council (or whoever we're mad at today), but when you get down into the actual work that these people have the responsibility to do, it's usually not that simple."
Now if you replace "the council" with "Judge Vaughn Walker" in the above quote from Mr. Saunders, I dare say that Mr. Saunders has made at least one of my points for me. Thank you for that.
"As to dragging things out, let's talk about moving the goalposts or oversimplifying complicated matters. If there's a theme here, it's that it's easy to get mad and throw stones at the council (or whoever we're mad at today), but when you get down into the actual work that these people have the responsibility to do, it's usually not that simple."
I could have sworn I heard Goldman Sachs' CEO say the same thing last week about the outrage over executive bonuses funded by taxpayer bailouts.
Thank you for the clarification on the HMB bond, Mr. Simmons.
I didn't know Lon Simmons posted here? WTF?
From what I could tell, the term "absence of impartiality" wasn't directly applied to the judge, but rather to the Humboldt County community, which was believed to be hostile to environmentalists.
It applied directly to the judge. I quoted from the 9th Circuit ruling above, but since it clearly got missed, here it is again:
The Court therefore ruled that "On this record it appears that the district court's actions reveal an appearance of an absence of impartiality sufficient to warrant reassigning this case. We therefore GRANT petitioner's requested relief and direct the Clerk of the Northern District of California to reassign this case to another district judge through the Northern District's random selection process; we also VACATE the order transferring the re-trial to Eureka."
As to HMB being required to post a bond, that was speculation. They never appealed, so they never found out whether posting a bond would have been required. As it is, they funded well more than the hypothetical $10M bond. They funded $18M, and fired 19 employees.
Ok, re-reading the court of appeal judgment makes me think you're right, Richard. The comment about absence of impartiality did refer to the judge more than the Humboldt County community and jury pool. I'm still not sure that reassigning a judge is that horrific, though. It could be a very common, boilerplate reason for overturning a judge's decision.
I keep looking for some kind of grade or rating of Walker as a judge, and all I can find is stuff about him being gay.
Yeah, the Prop 8 stuff is kinda snow-blinding Google. Try adding - to the front of phrases that are getting the Prop 8 hits, e.g., add -"Prop 8" to the search terms like "Vaughn Walker" to winnow out the more recent hits.
Here's one rating Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
You know, my only point about the HMB ruling was the ruling itself. As I read it, it seemed ideologically driven, not grounded well in the law. I ascribed that to an assumption about the judge's personal ideology. That may well be, or may not, but in either case it's immaterial, and I apologize for the distraction.
It's the ruling I took issue with, and on its merits (or lack thereof). The "novel" findings were not consistent with land use cases and law I've studied. I brought it up all in response to a comment Jeffrey made when making comparisons to Pacifica. What's really amiss with that comment is this bit, "fighting a coastal development". That's mighty oversimplified, and not really what the case was about.
For a good, lawyerly look at the case, see these two links:
California Lawyer Magazine editorial
California Lawyer Magazine story
But this thread was about the city council criminally giving away the candy store or something. Does anyone have copies of any of the union contracts?
you amaze me, Richard.
First of all that rating of Judge Vaughn Walker on therobingroom.com is based on 4 comments, 2 high ratings, 2 unusually low and bitter ratings. Hardly a comprehensive evaluation.
At the heart of the HMB decision, and your basis for appeal, are 2 issues. Did HMB create the wetlands they later used to stifle development at Beachwood? and if so, what compensation did they owe the owners for the regulatory "taking"?
Here's a different "spin" on the events:
The Cost of Wetlands
it seems like the consistent cry of the losers of this lawsuit and their supporters is not that HMB didn't create the wetlands, or that they used these narrowly defined wetlands to block development, but its the size of the judgment awarded to Chop Keenan.
We've seen this same game played out in Pacifica with Mori Point, the Quarry, even recent attempts to remove the Sharp Park Golf Course . . . where coastal preservation trumps municipal needs for development and growth to generate revenue to survive.
I don't there is anything arbitrary or malicious about Judge Walker's decision. HMB took its chances in court, and it seems like even they kept fishing for the right "evidence" until they found what supported their efforts to block development at Beachwood. And now they have to pay for it.
Don't blame Judge Walker, blame the people who didn't give the developer a fair shake to put homes on his property. Clearly, this is not a sustainable path to follow.
"I don't think there's anything arbitrary or malicious" that should say
Here ia an interesting take on the HMB matter written by an attorney: HMB Lawsuit
The article doesn't make Judge Walker out to be quite the bad judge that Richard Saunders claims he is. I called an attorney friend of mine who practices in San Francisco regarding Judge Walker. He claims that Judge Walker has "an honorable reputation and exhibits exemplary judicial temperment". Seems to me that Richard Saunders is simply a sore loser. Most of the discussion on the judge in the the vast Googlesphere of opinions seems to be slanted towards whatever side the author found themselves on with respect to the judge's gavel.
It also seems, from re-reading the history of the litigation, that Chop Keenan made every effort to settle the dispute out of court. I don't get the impression he had any desire to sue Half Moon Bay, and only did so as a last resort.
"During the Measure L campaign, Dinah Verby wrote a "scare letter" about how if Measure L passed and Prop 90 passed, it could mean the financial ruin of the City of Pacifica."
Jeff,
During that campaign, I also wrote at least one letter trying to alert the public about Prop 90 and its potentially devastating effect on a municipalities' ability to regulate land use.
It was so vaguely written, that the only thing certain was that a litigious person such as Mr. Peebles (read his book!) would have had a field day in the courts had 90 passed, no matter whether Measure L had passed or failed!
Funded by a New York real estate billionaire, (bring back the 91% tax rate) it was part of a multi-state push to effectively de-regulate land use.
Mr. Peebles asserted that it would not have any effect on the Quarry zoning. But two of his attorneys worked for the same law firm that was advising the "No on 90" campaign. That he wasn't fully aware of the opportunities presented by its passage is, to say the least, questionable.
Dinah and I came to the same conclusion separately, and she's taken plenty of heat for it. I admire her courage.
well Lionel we'll have to agree to disagree since I don't believe Dinah's letter was about the perils of Prop 90 (she had never before spoken about some ideological bend towards protecting a municipalities right to regulate land use) as much as it was a specious reason to vote against Measure L. Which is fine, that argument could be made, but Beachwood happened after Prop 90 failed.
What happened in Half Moon Bay is the "nightmare" scenario that Dinah had laid out in her Prop 90/Measure L column.
I've read Don Peebles' book and I don't believe calling him a "litigious" person is any more fair or accurate than calling Chop Keenan a "predatory developer". I know 2 things about Don Peebles for certain: he bought the Quarry with the intent of developing it, and he was greatly disappointed by the narrow loss of Measure L. Neither of those indicate Don Peebles or Daniel Grimm want to get into a litigation with the City of Pacifica with the intent of profiting from that litigation.
So the spectre of a lawsuit still hangs over Pacifica's head, except the creation of wetlands on the Quarry was actually more deliberate and the paperwork more easy to trace for Pacifica (when I worked for Paradigm, I volunteered to do research on my own time to find out where the city stood on this issue. There are ample amounts of paperwork that leave little doubt the City of Pacifica deliberately created - not "restored" but created - wetlands on the Quarry property).
My point was that Dinah created a big stink about a certain set of circumstances (prop 90 passes and Measure L passes) that didn't have to occur for the Beachwood scenario to play out in Half Moon Bay.
We can either learn from Half Moon Bay's errors, or suffer far more from our collective ignorance. Because the Quarry is more acreage, worth more in potential revenue to the developer, and still in need of reclamation.
btw its kind of interesting that 1/3 of the money raised by the NO on 90 campaign came from the League of California Cities:
FOLLOW THE MONEY
In fact, the NO on 90 campaign listed $12.4 million in contributions, 3 times more than the YES on 90 campaign . . . ah taxpayer-funded lobbying at its best . . .
All I know is I sure would think twice before I screwed over a guy named "Chop"...
Lionel, I'm really not with you on Prop 90, similar to Jeff above, and have changed my reply to Jeff's Sustainable Development article.
We can argue about the particulars, but Measure L, the 2006 quarry development proposal, was a quality example of sustainable development. And, the interpretation of Prop 90 from Dinah Verby appears to be another Red Herring to "scare voters" and defeat that economic development-- just more strategic propaganda from Pacificans for Sustainable Development (PSD) similar to "355", "Traffic" and "Outsider" to assure more "nothing for Pacifica". And with that folly comes severe financial and economic consequences for all Pacificans-- millions of dollars of needed tax revenue lost, along with services and jobs.
Think Jeff is looking for Richard to reply on his "Sustainable Development article too.
Post a Comment