Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Hugging our City Council Leaders


In reference to the prior 4/19/10 article question "What's the plan?"
And, taking another look - Pacifica Tribune, 4/14/10, letters-to-the-editor, http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_14876965


"I was struck by the recent letters in the Tribune which were so very critical of our mayor and the City Council. Some time ago, I made a public promise on this "Letters" page that I would end my cranky and argumentative written remarks which had been, in part, so harsh on our city leaders. I found out that it's very easy to demonize the "folks in charge" — to make all sorts of accusations and raise all sorts of questions and disagree with everything that the current administration has done, is now doing, or has failed to do. It's so simple to do this, to say to the leaders of Pacifica, "you got us into this, now you get us out." I regret my own past criticisms of our elected officials here in this beautiful city by the ocean. To those who continue to take their shots at the mayor and the City Council, I offer this brief comment from my collection of quotations. The author is Kenneth Tynan: "A critic is a man who knows the way but can't drive the car." Maybe the recent contributors to these pages who have been so negative about our current situation could come up with some specific, practical and feasible ways to "drive the car." I'd be most eager to see what they propose for the good of Pacifica." Father Piers Lahey

Thank you Father Piers Lahey for your comments. As you've ask, here's my specific, practical and feasible ways to "drive the Fix Pacifica car": remove all 3 incumbent City Councilmembers in the 2010 election, and replace them with 3 pro-economic challengers. With an 8 year legacy and purposeful economic failure track record, some of us think its time for a for a City Council change. Is that specific enough? No need to feel guilty for just or righteous criticism, 10 Hail Mary's.

Posted by Kathy Meeh

4 comments:

Lionel Emde said...

Father Lahey needs to be a little more specific, as it's easy to broadbrush criticism of the city's policies in the way that he does.

Is every criticism unwarranted? Only some?

It's an incredibly weak argument without analysis of those criticisms he finds unjust or wrong.

Kathy said...

I think the criticism focus is economic development, the promotion of which this city council has blocked. Not enough money causes a whole bunch of city abnormalities and neglect, we see it everywhere in this city. Not specific enough? Eroding cliffs, periodic sewer problems and fines, Highway 1 and other road improvement, non-ADA compliant City Hall, Police department technology and employment gaps, not undergrounding city overhead utility wires, city maintenance inadequacies, periodic sea wall deficiencies, clubs and individuals who try to make-up financial deficiencies to improve the city-- to name my personal several. Of course I don't exactly remember what several city council inadequacies Father Lahey may have been referring to.

Then, there is the cronyism issue, including stacking commissions and committees with friends of city council, whereas the city requirement is a cross-section of citizens. Not only does that not happen, but when it comes to developments, "friends" (Pacificans for Sustainable Development NOT) have exerted "undue influence" (my educated opinion from process observation).

Lionel, then there was a letter you sent to city council on a Consideration (discussion) item that city council posted internally to the item but refused to read into the record. In the past, letters have been read into the record, this was a "new rule" initiated by Councilmember Lancelle, approved by city council.

News to the public from City Council tends to be that of the "dog and pony" show, showing the rosy scenario where possible, shoving some items through the Consent Calendar (pass through) when they belong in Consideration (discussion).

It seems this city council is not always as transparent as is should be, and doesn't always level with the public. And, their campaign advertising and communication to the public has departed from their actual agenda, which seems to favor the dictates of the few (cronies) vs. the needs of the many (the people of Pacifica) and the beneficial improvement of the city. In 8 years this city council failed to support development at the Beach/Palmento anchor, and the quarry redevelopment zone (tax revenue of 85 cents on the dollar). Councilmember Vreeland was most responsible for pushing forward ocean front city hall, and this 8 year city council all signed-on to the illusion it would only cost $2 million when the later estimated cost would be closer to $25 million.

This election we will get the fake "we're for development" and "well run city experience" statements from them. Again, fake. Hey, here's one outstanding issue not mentioned so far--don't expect the incumbents to talk about the needed $50 million sewer collection pipes
replacement (yes, you'll hear about that next year after the election).

Lionel Emde said...

No Kathy, It's Father Lahey's non-specificity that's the problem with his letter.
What exactly is he criticizing?
And if it's a general criticism of criticism, why are we worried about it?
Don't mean sh@@.

The Father's Father said...

You'll have to forgive my boy for he knows not what he does...