I've never taken disincorporation seriously, but I'm hardly an expert on what's involved with the process. In Googling around for some information, I came across a few links that might be of interest.
http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/05/municipal-disincorporation.html
http://tinyurl.com/m3pvk7
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/gov/57400-57425.html
From http://www.guidetogov.org/ca/state/overview/municipal.html#6
The question of disincorporation must be considered by a city council if petitioned by 20 percent of the city's voters. A majority of those voting in a special election determines the outcome. No city has disincorporated since 1972.
I did read that certain states and counties can deny disincorporation. Whether San Mateo County has that power is something I couldn't find the answer to. In any event, it doesn't look like disincorporation will allow the city to escape its debt by offloading it to the county.
Posted by Steve Sinai
42 comments:
From Guide to Government above..Can a city disincorporate? How? "The question of disincorporation must be considered by a city council if petitioned by 20 percent of the city's voters. A majority of those voting in a special election determines the outcome. No city has disincorporated since 1972."
So, guess a city can be bankrupt and not disincorporate, and the solution to funding is tax the people? Is that how it works? Without economic development happening soon, this city is likely to get to be very expensive or even more lacking in reasonably expected services.
An interesting bit of info was that the last town to disincorporate in California was Cabazon (between San Bernardino and Palm Springs) in 1972.
They ended up opening 2 OUTLET MALLS!! And a casino!! I bet they're richer than Croesus!! That's what we need for the quarry!!!!!!!
Just a speculative "what-if"...what if Pacifica disincorporated, and whoever bought the quarry wanted to build housing there. I wonder if some kind of vote would still be required to allow housing in the quarry?
Cabazon disincorporated because they had a corrupt city council which caused their economy to fail. We have a "no growth" (lopsided) city council which is causing our economy to fail. The difference here is this city council probably thinks the quarry economic solution needed is more "open space"-- "our environment is our economy". Thanks for connecting this back to the Cabazon disincorporation, Steve.
Hope the new quarry developer will be looking at the "highest and best" use after the quarry is re-surfaced. Outlet malls and a casino would be a big improvement to the current tax revenues. Oops, next comment post might be Richard choosing each outlet and measuring the mall square footage again.
Thanks, Steve, this info bit about Cabazon has me a little excited. Perhaps a mixed residential business development for the quarry could be good. Better yet, an outlet mall would be terrific to create a bigger tax base, local jobs and needed services. It would probably compete somewhat with Serramonte. The closest outlet malls are 50 miles in either direction. I believe you threw out this idea, a couple of months ago, if memory serves. We all remember what happened with Peebles. The Palmetto Beach Blvd. stretch, prime oceanfront location, could be our downtown with a nice hotel and cluster shops, restaurants and nightlife spots. Both locations have been sitting undeveloped for years. Rather puzzling, considering the city’s financial woes. No doubt you heard of the resignation of Don Eagleston, our chamber of commerce CEO. I had the pleasure of meeting him a few months ago, when I was involved with PCC (Pacifica Community Coalition), formed to help save Sharp Park golf course. Don with an impressive resume, has extensive expertise in downtown streetscape development and was hired 12 years ago, I am guessing, mainly for this reason. In his parting statements, he said he "wanted to continue his career elsewhere, where his expertise can be better utilized". Guess, this says it all! I hope we see some good candidates for the coming elections. This town is beginning to look like a third world village. Charming, I guess..
"We have a "no growth" (lopsided) city council which is causing our economy to fail."
Kathy,
Please list all the projects which this city council stopped from happening.
Eagleston: Good Riddance, he thinks the garbage contract is a "good deal for Pacifica"(!)
I sure as hell won't have him negotiating on my behalf.
Lionel, did this city council 4 support quarry development 2x? NO, Cal Hinton did. Prior to that Maxine Gonsalves, Barbara Carr and Cal Hinton did, Maxine and Barbara were up for election-- city council friends campaigned (in their usual twisted manner) to oust them.
Did this city council support Palmetto development, Barry Swenson and the others? NO, in fact Swenson was one day late in paying the retainer and city council canceled that contract.
Members on city council "Saved Mori Point", saved Mori Point 100%. If you look at the geographical location of Mori Point its in the heart of what should be our downtown. Saving 1/3 toward the ocean might have been nice, enough room for frogs and snakes and a great view. Remember originally we citizens voted to develop that property, but "they saved it"-- all of it.
Getting anything through regulatory planning is probably the slowest, most expensive and most chopped on the planet. Has city council done anything to changing that? No. Has city council done anything to help bring in significant economic development to this city? No.
Then there was the city council sub-committee (Vreeland and Lancelle) negotiating a whole new private/public partnership plan with the quarry owner who previously had a researched plan. After that meeting and plenty of aggravation prior the property went up for sale.
My understanding from those who have had large parcels of land for years during the time of this city council this city aggressively "encouraged" land donation to "open space".
Then there was the Rockaway Quarry Committee to "welcome developers" which included John Curtis, Dinah Verby and others who support "nothing for Pacifica". Followed by the 5 year never met Economic Development Committee, Dinah Verby, Chair. How about appointed by this city council 3 EPA attorneys (or related) on the planning commission? Yep, this city council.
Don't forget the flaky City Strategic Plan, the plan for the quarry proposed by Pacificans for (NO)Sustainable Development, the interference in development projects by "friends of city council", and the city economic plan "recreation" as long as recreation = skate park, surfing or trails that is. This kind of "dead end" planning and influence occurred on the watch of this city council.
How many small developers have given-up or gone broke in this city trying to build improvements? Lionel, city council support is not just the technical vote, its what happens before, during and after.
The Council doesn't have to say "no" to kill projects. The standard operating procedure to block development in this town is for Council to simply never say "yes" to approval. The process gets so dragged out that the developers eventually give up and/or run out of money.
Lionel, Don Eagleston had absolutely nothing to do with the new Garbage contract. He doesn’t have any decision making powers on such matters. The contract was made by our do nothing council. In fact, I believe this garbage contract was the last straw in his decision to resign. If memory serves, Eagleston was hired in 1998, by then council members Hinton, Gonzalves & Carr, with the purpose of developing a strategy for a Palmetto downtown streetscape. That is precisely where his expertise lies. You may want to check out downtown Saratoga to get an idea of Don’s previous accomplishment. In Jan. of 1999, Vreeland started his 12 year tenure as councilman. Later, he was joined by Lancelle, Digre and DeJarnett. I don’t have to spell it out for you. Don spent 12 years trying in vain to hook up development opportunities, only to be shut down by the no progress city council. When the Recology contract was signed, he most likely had already made the decision to leave. The only reason he said the contract was good for Pacifica, is not wanting to burn any bridges.
He recruited Swenson to develop the old Water Treatment Plant, only to have our council shoot it down on a technicality. If you check out last week’s Tribune article about his resignation, Don’s parting remarks say it all.
The Swenson argument is nonsense--they were the ones who strung the city out as far as possible in hopes of a better deal.
Eagleston did nothing I can see for the EXISTING business community--don't forget that we are the ones who are actually here, bro--not some pie-in the-sky idiocy like Peeblestown.
In fact if the Chamber of Commerce were to disappear tomorrow, there's only two worthwhile things we'd need to pick up:
A. The printed directory, which sells ads and has listings and is self-sustaining.
B. The Visitor's Center, which has a $10,000 city subsidy already.
Eagleston not only supported the screwjob garbage contract, he put the Chamber Board up to a vote to support the sales tax increase last year. There's a pro-business move for you! They never polled their membership as to how real, actual businesses felt about bearing the burden of the highest sales tax rate in the Bay Area, no, they had to think about that city money that might be withdrawn should they be so forward as to defend local business.
Good Riddance to incompetence!
The City Council also gave the exclusive right to Develop the old WWTP(Waste Water Treatment Plant) to Skyfield USA..
Big loud "cymbal crash"
That's a lot of guessing about Eagleston.
Another "friendly deal", similar to Whole Energy Fuels biodiesel-- guess they didn't do much checking to see if the LLC was financially capable to deliver.
The statements about what developments the council has or has not supported over the years is warped to the point of unreality and misses the point. The reality is that the electorate does not support the point of view that the Ms. Meeh has.
There were some 200 plus requests for proposal sent out to redevelop the old WWTP with only one response; Swenson. This was heading into the peak of the real estate boom. It seemed clear that they had very little or no interest in the project and were doing little or nothing to proceed so why bother with them.
Development in the quarry was voted down by large margins multiple times.
Mori Point is an old story going back 30 years with development there also voted down by large margins multiple times.
As far as difficulty in getting a develpment proposal approved Ms Meeh does not know what she is talking about. The process in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Burlingame, San Mateo, Co. of San Mateo, Redwood City, Berkley, Walnut Creek, all of Marin...is as difficult if not (MUCH) more so. People are protective of what they have. What drives developers is return on investment, if they can make a profit it does not matter what is in the way, they will go around it or over it.
It seems clear that the VOTERS of Pacifica do not want change. Until that turns around all of the name calling and finger pointing in the world will not change the outcome of the development process. Bitterness will not change a thing.
Oh wow is your brain deluded Anonymous, probably best to stop drinking that Kool-Aid immediately.
The reality is that the electorate actually VOTED to develop the 105 acres of Mori Point at one time.
To develop the old WWTP (not a redevelopment zone), try not only Swenson but also offers from Kiwi Properties, Peebles Corp, Skyfield USA, and Marchetti and Sochin.
True, there has been ongoing spin campaigns against developing the quarry a redevelopment zone yielding 85 cents on the dollar tax revenue, services, jobs. Some of the propaganda which worked well (and you probably know about that), included TRAFFIC (solution fix the Highway 1 problem, the developer must mitigate); then, there was 355 (not a village but a housing project), Eminent Domain (a true red herring); outsider (in reference to the developer, as if an insider, city contractor would have the expertise or could actually afford to develop that land). The argument against both Measure L and Measure E before that was essentially the same, as was the propaganda, as were those against. All part of the city council-Pacificans for (NO) Sustainable Development crowd. And, how's that anti-economic development "stuff" work-out for this city?
Since you claim the answers to how long the development process takes, you Anonymous target practicing coward, give us the comparative statistics. My understanding is outside Pacifica the regulatory planning time is about half, and the cost lower. Let us know.
What you call "finger pointing" I call an 8 year city council track record. Hey its their economic track record "nothing for Pacifica"-- hurray, vote for that eco-mythology platform Anonymous. Illusion and wishful-thinking and revisionist history will not pay city overhead, and provide "average" expected services for the people of this city.
Pacifica
Measure B, an advisory vote that called for a single, 200-table gambling hall to be built on Mori Point.
Dec. 12, 1995
Failed 76%
Guess the year this was written:
Commercial projects that never materialized
Mori Point Conference Center - Voters approved the project, but city permits were challenged by grassroots legal challenge and property eventually foreclosed on.
DBO Shopping Center with upscale oceanfront housing at Quarry Public vote deleted housing element, killing the project.
Sea Garden Arts Center near Pacifica State Beach Defeated at the polls twice with strong opposition from surfing community.
Pedro Point Outlet Mall - Developer discouraged from proceeding at City Council study session due to pressure from Pedro Point neighborhood.
Manor Shell Car Wash - and service station upgrade Planning Commission approved, but decision overturned by City Council on appeal due to traffic concerns.
Palmetto Avenue brew pub - Rejected due to neighborhood concerns.
Card Club on Mori Point - Overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
Burger King on Highway 1 - at Reina del Mar Developer did not pursue plans after initial concerns about traffic circulation and access off Highway 1.
Yes Richard, the Mori Point conference center project that was approved by Pacifican through the ballot got the usual blocking and delays, until the developer finally went bankrupt, and died of a heart attack.
Quarry village, housing didn't kill the project, the targeted "no growth" propaganda and city sub-committee (Vreeland-Lancelle) did.
The other developments you mention are interesting, but wouldn't substantially affect the city economy.
Measure B, Gambling, 1976. Yep lots of us voted against that one.
1995, not 1976.
Pre-Vreeland, by the way.
And the list above, Chris Hunter wrote that list in 1997.
Pre-Vreeland.
See a pattern?
The pattern I see is same campaign against the quarry development 2002 and 2006, this city council. Then there were all that blocking of developing the old WWTP/Palmetto area, this city council.
But Kathy, all of that list that Chris wrote about in 1997 was with very different council members, and yet the results sound so similar.
What list? Maxine, Barbara and Cal all supported Measure E-- that the reason your "friends" worked so hard to get rid Maxine and Barbara running for election in 2002. With Measure E quarry development the plan was to use Measure A money and quarry project credit to help fix the highway; and to put in another needed Fire station at Rockaway. I'm sure these three councilmembers were also aware that increased tax revenue monies would pay for other city infrastructure deficiencies.
I understand what Richard is saying. The town's hostile attitude toward economic development has existed at least since 1984, when I first moved here. It's a long-term problem, although the last 8 years have taken it to an extreme.
You've got it, Steve, although I suspect many would view it as valuing Pacifica's abundance of environmental treasures, be it open space, beaches, ocean, mountains, valleys, hilltops, plants, animals, birds, you name it. It's obviously a different point of view, but it does not have to be in opposition to economic development. Certainly if proposals don't take the concerns of the voters into account, they will (and have) failed. But there is common ground to be found.
And Kathy, please, enough with the assumptions and quotation marks. I knew Maxine. We didn't agree on everything, but we found things to work on together, and like so many others, I attended her memorial that overflowed the chapel.
It's not "us" vs. "them". Pogo had it right.
This current council has never seen a development project it didn't like.
They've approved all of them when the developer got past the planning commission.
In fact I remember appeals going to the council and they overturned the commission's denial and approved projects with further modification.
The assertion that this council is anti-development is a fiction.
BTW, Kathy, For the record, Cal Hinton supported Meas. E, Sue Digre opposed it, and the other three took no position. Your assertion that they opposed it is wrong.
A little tiny problem stopped us from doing projects..No money!!!!
Skyfield, are you saying that the city should be paying for development projects?
Wrong Lionel, both Maxine Gonsalves and Barbara Carr supported Measure E (I think their names were even printed on the advertising), and that's why "friends of Richard" made sure they didn't get re-elected-- and instead supported Julie Lancelle and Sue Digre. I was there, Maxine and Barbara were also friends of mine, and they sure didn't "duck and cover" or hide in the shadows. As you know in this city "no position" means "no support" (think we can all figure that one out).
The technicality of city council passing approved planning commission developments (above) is almost completely meaningless. The city council and "friends" support or lack there of around such development issues is what counts, and this city council supports "nothing for Pacifica", that's why there has been no significant development in Pacifica in 8 years.
Richard, why are you whining? For the last 8 years you and your "friends" have won, and we are now living with the consequences. Thanks let's all be friends. Pogo is a cartoon, similar to Pacificans for (no) Sustainable Development.
Right, Skyfield USA. You were the local guys, another darling choice of this city council, along with Whole Energy Fules and others-- all flaky. Case proven again. This city council: great personalities, economically deficient.
Kathy, Maxine was a friend, so why do you persist with childish things like "friends of Richard"?
You keep attacking people who don't take your statements as the whole of the story. You have shown you can bring facts and analysis to these discussions, yet you keep making it personal instead.
Walt Kelly wrote about this long ago. See the Pogo I'm referring to here.
Walt wrote:
"Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward!”
—Walt Kelly, June 1953
Skyfield, I may have misunderstood. Were you saying that Skyfield didn't have the money to proceed at the time?
Remember about that time, Nicks was supposed to be renovated, local people invested their money, Skyfield defaulted.
Richard, No money=no projects
Richard, since you seem to be confused or twisted about what I am "attacking" by all means lets be very clear about that-- its your ideas, ideology, what's delivered as fact or information which is not correct or makes no sense or seems intended to confuse the issue-- and the havoc which has been perpetuated on this city and the good of our people as a result.
Not even a household generally functions well without money, services, jobs and/or a stream-of-income. And in that regard there are safety, convenience, social and cultural issues to be addressed.
Undercutting the needs and integrity of our city, yet functioning with the neglected city infrastructure and "on the cheap", this city council tends repeatedly to screw-it-up-- 8 years of this, when opportunities to off-set and "fix" have presented. I'm fed-up with broken promises and lame non-solutions. Time for a divorce from this city council and their "friends" leadership.
And, you (defender of most of what doesn't work in this city) have yet to prove your case for "our environment is our economy". "Our environment is our economy" and more "open space" will not pay the city financial overhead, or provide services or jobs. And, the reason you can't prove your case is because it isn't real. "Got it"?
In reference to your prior comments--are these statements personal enough for you?
Kathy, I'm not defending the city. I was much closer to Maxine than I have ever been to any current council member.
When you make claims about how awful a city council member is, or the council as a whole, or the city as a whole, does it make someone their defender when you're asked to provide a basis for your claim?
There are plenty of things you and Steve have said I've taken no issue with. On some things, I know enough about it on my own to accept what you've said. Or some things you've clearly labeled as your opinion, not claimed as fact (and on matters of opinion, it doesn't matter if we agree).
But if it sounds like something that could be supported with fact but the facts aren't in evidence, or where there's likely to be more to the story, the value of your ideas and claims will either stand up to scrutiny or not.
If you'd rather not have your claims examined, you can always bring more to the table when you make them. Why would anyone take at face value what you tell us is based in anger? Your anger might be righteous. If it is, make the case. But just because you're angry doesn't mean we have to take everything you tell us without question.
One last side comment, I have not put forward "our environment is our economy" and more "open space" as the cure for the city's financial overhead. My comments on the open space have been around the value that has not been quantified or acknowledged, but that does exist. For the big pain on the city's budget, I've focused more specifically on driving more traffic to existing businesses, and directing attention to creating or enhancing business districts. That's a conversation that no one really seems to want to have.
Richard, what enhanced business districts, to be enhanced with what money? No money, more of the same BS. And from your words you appear to be part of the same spin machine, therefore defender.
Actually Richard, it doesn't matter if we agree on anything. It doesn't even matter if you read or understand much of anything I say, or are having a problem distinguishing fact from opinion, etc, etc-- frankly the dialog is not about you, its about this city.
From my view you are not a logical thinker but more a circumvent thinker. And, if you're Scott Boyd and don't live here or have no vested interest, why are you involved with this e-list?
what enhanced business districts, to be enhanced with what money?
Very little of what I've brought up as suggestions would take much money. But no one here wants to talk about those ideas.
It all boils down to run out the incumbents and build a big outlet mall.
So here's the question to you, for your ideas, with what money?
Richard, there are no businesses in town worth driving people to. Consignment shops and nail salons only attract a limited number of customers. That's why we need more, and a better variety of, businesses.
The talk about enhancing business districts has been going on for at least 30 years. Nothing's happened. Why should anyone believe it's going to be different this time?
no businesses in town worth driving people to
That should really bring the business community on board.
I'm pretty sure the business community is already on board, Richard.
For example, the Chamber of Commerce recently underwent a mutiny against its leadership because Chamber members got fed-up with the way it was acquiescing to the Council's destruction of the local business environment. They're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They know they have to start fighting for their survival. It should be fun to watch the Chamber, rather than acting like an acquiescing, beaten-down dog as it has in the past...instead take on the role of attack dog in opposing inane council policies like increasing the local sales tax.
The local business community doesn't need me to convince them of anything.
Of course, Richard, if you think the Pacifica business community is happy with Council's policies, you're welcome to tell us why.
We need change, on all levels
local, county, state, federal
Steve, when you said there are "no businesses in town worth driving people to", how is that not a slap in the face to every local business owner? They may be on board against current policies, but how does alienating them help you build the coalition you want to make the change happen?
disincorporations doesn't get us off the hook for debt, pension obligations or any of the other head banging idea's expressed here. We as residents will still own all that debt.
I don't know who's smoking what or why so many nose pickers are championing this concept but it's not a real option just another bad idea from the bad idea folks at P4P and PBRG.
Post a Comment