Thursday, March 11, 2010

Pete's Traffic Promise

From Pete DeJarnatt's 2008 City Council election campaign

Posted by Steve Sinai
Posted by at

42 comments:

Richard Saunders said...

Connemara sits atop a cliff as contradiction to your edit on bullet 3.

Situated atop the stunning coastal cliffs of Pacifica, Connemara offers an exquisite selection of floor plans that range from 2,055 to 3,386 square feet.

Given that it's from his 2008 campaign, you could dispute that example, but his term has time still on the clock, too.

Which services and programs to youth, seniors and disabled have been cut?

March 11, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Kathy Meeh said...

How perfect can editing get! Its like the truth squad moved-in on this brochure, which may look like the future not "pro-economy", "pro-development" brochure for Pete and re-Pete.

So, I don't know why Richard (who adopted the pen-name of Benjamin Franklin) continues to change the subject. Do you really think Pete championed Connemara? Hey maybe he did, that's why after chopping and redrafting, it only took the project 4 years to get through planning and approved by city council all ready to get built into an economic time of recession.

March 11, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Richard Saunders said...

I'm just saying that Pete did not stop all development, so Steve's edit is really not all that correct.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

March 11, 2010 at 10:43 AM
Kathy Meeh said...

Right, Richard "facts" are bad, huh?

Oh "Pete did not stop ALL development". Referring to the hillside I guess, these developments passed Planning after 4 years of being influenced and chopped. True, Pacificans for (no) Sustainable Development, and city council couldn't stop "everything". But, Pete and city council get well deserved credit on this funny sarcastic edit article for trying.

And you too, Richard, deserve credit for verifying everything else-- from your view.

March 11, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Richard Saunders said...

Made up statements claimed as fact are bad. Truthiness is not a virtue.

So, while Steve's edit is humorous in its truthiness, his edit changing "inappropriate" to "any" is just incorrect.

Nice try at putting words in my mouth, Kathy, but I already asked and no one has responded yet, so I'll ask again, which services and programs to youth, seniors, and disabled have been cut?

March 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Steve Sinai said...

You're taking the edits far too seriously, Richard.

March 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Humor's all well and good (and some of it hits the nail on the head), but the truth matters, too. When it's simply wrong, it undermines the parody.

March 11, 2010 at 2:11 PM
Steve Sinai said...

The image is no different than any political cartoon, except that since I can't draw, I can't actually come up with a real cartoon.

What do you think does more harm, Richard -- the above image; or Pete telling people during his last campaign that thanks to his stewardship, Pacifica had a $7 million surplus...and then immediately after he was re-elected, suddenly claiming Pacifica was destitute and needed a new sales tax?

I can't wait to see the spin the incumbents try to use to tout their "wise financial management" during the next election.

Anyway, the purpose of the post was to point out Pete's promise regarding improving traffic on Highway 1, though it probably got lost in all the edits. We'll see how seriously Pete takes his promises.

March 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Richard Saunders said...

All I'm saying is that the markup is more effective if you stick to the facts. One less edit and you wind up with a stronger statement.

March 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Scott Voyd said...

one less edit, you get fined by the FPPC

March 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

One less "Richard", fewer unrelated, irrelevant questions. What does your repeated questions "which services and programs to youth, seniors, and disabled have been cut?" have to do with the progressive 8 year structural economic and financial failure of this city?

And, Richard you didn't answer Steve's question, "What do you think does more harm, Richard -- the above image; or Pete telling people during his last campaign that thanks to his stewardship, Pacifica had a $7 million surplus...and then immediately after he was re-elected, suddenly claiming Pacifica was destitute and needed a new sales tax?"

March 11, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Steve, your question about which does more harm, you know you're presenting a false choice, right?

Do you care about being an effective voice for change? I've been working from that understanding.

March 11, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Steve Sinai said...

Richard, it looks to me like you're trying to change the subject.

March 11, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Kathleen Rogan said...

Richard Smitchard loves to obfuscate. He has decided to play that role on this blog. Don't fall for it. It is a calculated plan.

March 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM
Markus said...

Kathleen, agreed. What a Mouthpiece Richard is!
Steve & Kathy, don't let him throw you off track.

March 11, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Off track? Avoiding misstating the case is staying on track.

Steve's parody is a good one, except where it simply gets it wrong. Good political cartoons make points in big ways, but that only works where there's no disputing the claim.

Even the last bullet can be covered by poetic license since Steve's pulled in a new topic and set aside one of Pete's points. But it's not op-ed to just be wrong about the "no" point.

Unless you're also saying that Pete failed in an effort to keep development off of hillsides. But that would just muddle an otherwise good piece.

March 12, 2010 at 12:32 AM
Steve Sinai said...

"Do you care about being an effective voice for change? I've been working from that understanding."

I would think someone working for such a noble cause would be brave enough to put their real name behind their statements.

Also, people had been trying to build at the Connemara site for at least 10 years. That any construction eventually occurred was done in spite of Pete and the rest of council. So yes, Pete and the rest of council failed in their efforts.

The Houmam project was similar. Council tried to kill it by endlessly delaying and sending it back to the planning commission, until they finally got backed into a corner by a large segment of the community, and were forced to say "yes".

The more typical Council "success" would be the way they blocked the Horizons project. Anywhere other than Pacifica, that building would have been re-occupied in a few months.

March 12, 2010 at 1:09 AM
Bark Nuggets said...

Ah, c'mon. Steve's post was funny. I wouldn't think to sit there and fact-check his doodling -- I just enjoyed it for what it was. He's just poking fun at things from his point of view. I mean, are we really going to delve into whether Andrew Leone is truly a "hippie" or not.

It's okay to be able to occassionally laugh at these things.

March 12, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Richard Saunders said...

I would think someone working for such a noble cause would be brave enough to put their real name behind their statements.

If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, I'll just have to suffer through your withering criticism of me. After all, it just helps divert the conversation from the merits of the arguments.

Bark, I laughed as Steve's post until I got to the simply-wrong parts. C'mon, it's not that hard to avoid making wrong statements. I'm fine agreeing that it's funny and a good step towards effective criticism (my favorite cartoonist is Toles, for example), and humor has been one of the most effective political influences throughout the history of our country.

And I loved the hippie bit, especially since Steve is so self-deprecating about being one, too.

March 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Jeffrey W Simons said...

Well I hate to swing back and tell Scott Boyd posing as Richard Saunders he's wrong about something, but according to a conversation I just had with a former planning commissioner who was on the PC when Connemara first came to them, the property was an old quarry and then a "dog bathroom" before it was purchased and developed. I don't believe its part of the Hillside Preservation District either, so it appears Steve Sinai was not in error in his bullet point as alleged by Mister Boyd. Unless you consider the Rockaway Quarry a "hillside" as well.

Also, Tait Cowen (Harmony@1) and Rick Lee (The Prospects) both had projects approved after many years of delays, modifications, and genuflecting to the almighty John Curtis and Leone mafia (including Nancy Hall) within the HPD, but by the time the approvals came before City Council, both projects ran out of money and neither development has been built.

Furthermore, in regards to the Houman's project, after 2 years of working with the planning department, their project was finally approved unanimously by the planning commission on 1/5/09. 4 days later, Councilman Dejarnatt called up the project for review, as allowed under Section 2-1.133 of the Pacifica Municipal Code. This section of the code had only been used once before in the last 15 years.

5 days after that, the project was officially appealed by Flavia Mucci, despite her never having voiced any objection during the planning process. On 2/9/09 City of Pacifica City Council voted 4-0 to continue the appeal until until 3/9/09. On 3/9/09 City of Pacifica City Council voted 3-1 (Council Member Jim Vreeland voting NAY, Council Member Nihart recusing herself) to return the project to the Planning Commission for further modifications, specifically 3 foot setbacks as recommended by Council Member Dejarnatt. The project was modified and approved by the Planning Commission in a 7-0 vote on 5/18/09. It went for a vote before the City Council on 7/13/09 when they inexplicably delayed the project another 2 weeks so Sue Digre (who was absent) could vote on it.

(This was the famous meeting where the decided they had a quorum to vote they did not have enough people to vote on something. I believe this was also the meeting Jim Vreeland tried to have me thrown out for calling the city attorney an "idiot" because she didn't understand Robert's Rules of Order)

And I sat 2 seats down from Councilman Dejarnatt when he told the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee that his solution to the Highway 1 problem was "maybe let it get so bad the state steps in."

March 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Anonymous said...

DRAMA!!! You are a loser (as a candidate) and you should be thankful you are a loser.

March 12, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Yes, we know the pen-name reference to the wit and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, "Richard". Your comments are hardly that.

The wit and wisdom for this article post goes to Steve-- right on target Steve, true and very funny. And, thanks for the "heads up" Markus.

And, "Richard" aka: "Dick" your comment: "After all, it just helps divert the conversation from the merits of the arguments." Of course, that is exactly what you're doing as Kathleen also mentioned-- pure propaganda, and hiding behind a pen-name hardly deserving of such twisted cowardly statements.

Having said that, in the instances where you actually post real, connected or truthful statements or references-- these rare contributions are not a waste of time. But you know how that goes, the comments of merit (such as those related to business in-fill) get lost in the rest of us sweeping out the trash you deliver. Just my usual opinion and delivery of fact.

Nice to see you posting Jeff. "Richard" or Scott will probably dismiss these detailed facts as "just your opinion, man", but that's his personal can't or won't recognize fact from fiction, upside down circumvent logic problem, as stated in his own words above.

March 12, 2010 at 12:48 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous, my observation is that people who have run for office in this city and have lost are all WINNERS, and there is a long prestigious list of these.

City council has managed to retain their incumbency through a chain of public relations spin, posturing, and propaganda. And, the above flier corrected by Steve is an apt example.

The real losers are the people of Pacifica, Anonymous, and that includes you, me and most of us. Jeff had enough sense to move out of Pacifica and California.

March 12, 2010 at 1:01 PM
Sleep Train "Toot Toot" Conductor said...

When they started building houses at Connemara, we had to find a new place to dump old mattresses.

March 12, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Actually, Jeff, I said, "Given that it's from his 2008 campaign, you could dispute that example, but his term has time still on the clock, too." And the campaign piece talking only of inappropriate development on hillside, making no mention of Hillside Preservation District (moving the goalposts, Jeff). The piece also mentioned inappropriate development in open spaces, and the quarry would fit that (also despite its former life as a quarry, no one would seriously argue that it's not an open space now, would they?).

Despite the history of the parcel (and it's interesting, thanks), the developers of Connemara penned these words, "Situated atop the stunning coastal cliffs of Pacifica..."

Look, it just stuck out as something that took a little wind out of Steve's satirical commentary.

Since we're talking about reactions to things, consider this -- even in posting humor, the defensiveness here at any comment that is in any way not toeing the run-em-out-build-the-mall line is palpable.

March 12, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Sharon said...

@Richard/Dick/Scott/Ben whoever the heck you are "Since we're talking about reactions to things, consider this -- even in posting humor, the defensiveness here at any comment that is in any way not toeing the run-em-out-build-the-mall line is palpable"
I don't agree - you are just so exhausting to cope with, you turn off anyone else interested in blogging here. But then I guess that's the point. Seems to me you need to get a life.

March 12, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Richard, absolutely nothing "... took a little wind out of Steve's satirical commentary"-- that was only you blowing hot air at the mirror, and almost all of us who are not you get that. This kind of tactic reflects on you, not this funny and true article post.

Sharon makes an interesting supposition, "Seems to me you need to get a life". Of course that's her opinion, we don't really know if that's fact, only you do.






And, given your picky irrelevant, circumvent comments, Sharon makes an interesting, final comment summary "... Seems to me you need to get a life."

Steve's article post (above) is funny and true, and Jeff's specific comments contribution just leveled your "wind-bag" comments.

March 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Please ignore the trail, that was intended to be cut.

March 12, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...

"The piece also mentioned inappropriate development in open spaces, and the quarry would fit that (also despite its former life as a quarry, no one would seriously argue that it's not an open space now, would they?)."

Actually, Scott, it is a designated redevelopment district and "economic engine" for Pacifica (according to the bipartisan report from the Rockaway Quarry Steering Committee back in 1988).

So it is not a designated "open space" but more like a "non-productive asset." It is only empty through the efforts of council members like Pete Dejarnatt, Julie Lancelle, Jim Vreeland and their PSD supporters who seem to think the growing expenses and shrinking city staff can be solved by more taxes. The lack of development at the Rockaway Quarry has cost Pacifica hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of local jobs. Turning that property over to any land trust will pretty much seal Pacifica's dismal financial future.

March 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Markus said...

Sharon, I totally agree with you, however, you just may have given whatever his name an opportunity to take us into yet another diversion, discussion of his life status. At the risk of dangerously raising my stress level, I will attempt to ignore his remarks. I realize, this will lead to somewhat diminished participation on my part, unless others follow suit. Even more of a struggle for me is the realization that my coping solution cuts deeply into the intention of this blog. My apology.

March 12, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Sharon said...

But Jeff there are snakes and frogs there and you know all those hordes of frog lickers will come to see them. Also where will all the homeless encampments now in the non native pampas grass be relocated? I suppose we could send them to Palmetto Ave. and set up camp at the old WWTP or they could be relocated to the golf course if Lorie "I hate the golf course" Goldberg (sp) and Brent "I hate old white golfers" Plater succeed in destroying it.

March 12, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...

I'd like to see how Jeffrey would mark up the campaign piece.

March 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Steve Sinai said...

"If it was good enough for Ben Franklin, I'll just have to suffer through your withering criticism of me."

Yes, you're a true patriot and martyr for free-speech, Richard. Do you think King George is going to come and lock you in a stock or pillory?

In case anyone doesn't know what a stock or pillory is --

Colonial Punishments

March 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Jeffrey W Simons said...

I'd like to see how Jeffrey would mark up the campaign piece.

"blah blah blah . . . yada yada yada."

and then I'd pencil in how Andrew Leone was removed as director of the Sanchez Art Center for stealing the bank account of the Art Guild through a shadow 501c-3.

March 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Steve, if you want to require real names, change your rules. Criticize me all you want. It's a free country. But as it is, pseudonyms and anonymous posts are within the rules you set up.

March 12, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Kathy Meeh said...

Richard, it's a free country, you can self-will to use your own name. You don't have to aspire to and achieve minimum standards.

March 12, 2010 at 6:49 PM
Steve Sinai said...

You need me to force you to use your real name, Richard?

When the blog got started I suggested we not allow anonymous posts, but everyone else disagreed.

March 12, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Richard Saunders said...

Your name is not required when leaving a comment.

Your rules, and you're complaining. OK.

March 12, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...

Steve Sinai is the type who would kill his parents and ask the court to take mercy on him because he is an orphan.

Oops, I better be careful or his bodyguard Kathy will come after me...

March 12, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Steve Sinai said...

I'm very offended by what you wrote, Anonymous. I don't need no stinkin' bodyguard.

March 12, 2010 at 8:41 PM
The Real Richard Saunders said...

I always thought that Richard Saunders was Ken Restivo. BTW doesn't Restivo live in Daly City or SF!!!!!

March 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM
Kathy Meeh said...

Anonymous above, its understandable why John Maybury would choose to control articles and comments. Your unfortunate comment reflects back on you and your cowardice.

Personally, I appreciate all smart, crisp thought, articles, and comments. Sorry you're not apparently capable of that.

March 13, 2010 at 7:56 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)