Here we go again. For 3 years and 9 months, Councilmembers Digre, Lancelle and Vreeland totally neglect the city's economy so they can indulge their obsession with trails, snowy plovers, and "save the world" projects; do all they can to make life hell for Pacifica businesses; and drive away anyone who considers opening up a business in town. Then, for the 3 months leading up to the election, they talk crap about being pro-business and how they've got a great plan to promote Pacifica's economy.
They did the same thing four years ago. Remember Pete DeJarnatt's proud campaign boast in 2008, claiming his economic stewardship resulted in a $7+ million surplus? And then, "surprise, surprise, surprise" - after the election it was determined that the $7+ million surplus didn't really exist, and we were told that Pete "misspoke." What a con man.
Actions speak louder than words. The three incumbents up for re-election have all been on council for eight years or more, and other than coming up with silly slogans like "Our Environment is our Economy," can anyone point to anything they've done that's tangibly improved the city's economic situation?
From the Mayor: Pacifica's economic development
Posted: 07/29/2010 06:00:00 AM PDT
Updated: 07/29/2010 06:10:03 AM PDT
Pacificans are invited to participate in three subcommittees that are part of the city of Pacifica's Economic Development Committee. The next meeting is 6 p.m. Aug. 10 in the conference room at the Police Department, 2075 Cabrillo Highway.
The subcommittees are tasked with improving customer service ( city permits, etc.), assisting businesses and marketing Pacifica. For more information or to sign up, contact me at Digres@ci.pacifica.ca.us or leave your name at my City Hall mailbox.
The work plan of the Economic Committee, which was approved by the City Council in January of this year involves the following goals and objectives:
Streamline permit process for the opening of a new business or events
•Develop a questionnaire for those that have been through the current process recently, establish strengths or weakness of current process.
•Explore the potential for development of an on-line project status report tool.
•Research other city's processes to identify best practices that might be used in Pacifica.
•Work with the City Manager to consider the assignment of a liaison to assist the applicant with the permit process.
•Establish a defined and easy to follow rule set and application procedure for non-permanent facilities to be used during an event.
Read more...
Posted by Steve Sinai
31 comments:
Isn't this the same plan written by the economic development committee based on Nihart's work and ideas? Where does Sue get off putting her name on it? How lame is that? She spins her wheels, attends meetings and gets nothing done. A nice lady but ...
And the question is what does Mayor Digre mean by "economic development"? I think her understanding of that is is quite different from those of us who expect something other than customer service and a shuttle to connect areas of the city, (no shuttle mentioned in this article however).
The expectation from some of us includes actual tax revenue producing commerce which deposits money into our city general fund and pays our city bills, overhead, provides a cushion and advancement for our future.
Anon, the economic development committee objectives were properly credited in Mayor Digre's article, but that report looks more like better city efficiency and customer service than it looks like "economic development". Guess that's where we are as a city, "how lame is that"?
"Remember Pete DeJarnatt's proud campaign boast in 2008, claiming his economic stewardship resulted in a $7+ million surplus? And then, "surprise, surprise, surprise" - after the election it was determined that the $7+ million surplus didn't really exist, and we were told that Pete "misspoke."
Steve,
The Times story on the TOT increase noted that we had a $7 million surplus two years ago. Pete didn't say that to the reporter, it may have been the city manager.
At a meeting in Dec. 2008 of the Financing City Services group, the city manager said Pete "misspoke" about the surplus, or reserve.
So did we have the reserve or didn't we? I think Pete repeated what he was told. It's that source I would question.
Remember I promised you a dog park also. I never gave you the dog park now did I?
Lionel, I believe $5.5 million "city reserves" occurred from return of money from the North Pacifica LLC lawsuit. That lawsuit cost the city an additional $1.5 million, and continued from about 2000-02 until 2009. Councilmember DeJarnatt called that "our savings account" and thanked Cecilia Quick for her good work.
Of course, some of us think return of money from a law suit is just that, and total 7 year return on money of -$1.5 million is not such a good return. North Pacifica LLC was originally passed by city council with alleged intent to build, and without a "joint and several" homeowner liability contract clause. This is another city project that should have been built.
With the "joint and several" liability clause inserted, no standard insurer would insured these separate homes. Imagine you a single homeowner being liable for your neighbor's property-- that's how that "poison pill" clause worked. There was also a street access problem to the property in contention with the city: No access, no development.
One of the imported San Francisco people who spoke against the project at city council (about 2001) said she was "crying for the weeds" which were cleared by the developer in preparation to build. There was even a committee formed "to save the Fish and Bowl". Remember "we saved (downtown) Mori Point", so stated by councilmember DeJarnatt. Councilmembers Lancelle and Digre were involved; councilmember Vreeland was probably on both sides of that issue (as often is the case).
Yes, all kinds of property has been "saved" in Pacifica, unnecessarily so, to the economic detriment of the people who live here (services and jobs), those who sell, those who build, our tax base, and the developers who have acted in good faith with and without city approved projects.
Oh, I forgot, clarification regarding what Pete DeJarnatt said. He definitely said "we have a $7 million or $7.3 million reserve at city council." A reporter may have picked that up or not depending on the article. And at the same time Steve Rhodes has repeated the city council "party line" about that $7 million, I've heard that.
But, at a budget meeting last year, I pushed that question. And, Steve Rhodes clarified at that time it was not an true budget reserve. Well, we knew that. Yes, its money, already spent down, gone next year, but not a true planned budget reserve. This city has been living on serendipity, land sales and unnecessary lawsuits (crippling the efforts of others) for about 8 years.
"Sneaky", Pete helped "save Mori Point and other city properties", now we have a land shortage, almost no place to put that dog park and GGNRA won't provide a patch of their unproductive property-- what else do you want?
My concern is: Does staff know whether we have a reserve or not? They told Pete that, because he repeated it, then they told a Times reporter it was there recently, but in Dec. 2008 it wasn't there according to the city manager.
Which is it, do you think?
Lionel, its not a true reserve (not a separate account), its money not yet paid-out. The city has bills through-out the year, this is the money which will pay these bills and any projected overage.
No money in December may indicate the revenue they receive from property taxes had not yet been received from the county, and I think that money arrives in about February.
This is my understanding based upon their city council "dog and pony show" and their past budget meeting conversations.
Objective 2 and 3 were also in the paper. Why would Digre do an opinion piece that is simply a recap of other people's work? Does she think we are stupid? oh yeah, it's another campaign stunt like bringing up density transfers. Sorry I answered my own question.
Hey Sneaky. The EIR is completed on the dog park. PB&R approved it. Over course someone will appeal it.
Kathy,
Do you think you are funny. I pulled the only "dog and pony show' telling people I would get them the dog park.
Bad dog no biscuit.
This is my understanding based upon their city council "dog and pony show" and their past budget meeting conversations
"Sneaky", lets get a divorce and split custody of the dog. After all you never gave us that "dog park".
Senior Staff is aware of the financial situation, more so than council or us. What is hard to understand for me is the reluctance to save their jobs and pensions by taking cuts/furloughs to ensue solvency of our accounts to keep them employed. A 32 hour week is better than a zero hour week.
No matter who ends up on council this time around or next time around for that matter will be able to do much about what is happening now with revenues. Lamenting over past development projects or wishfully thinking about new development that would be years in the making is not adding to the discussion of how we work together, all of us, to get through the next 4 years.
Our city staff and employees are working hard for us, you can see it every day. But if there is no money... do we tax ourselves more? Insist on major staffing cuts? Or maybe a combination of both plus other measures? That is the topic... what as a group of 40,000 are we willing to do to stave off bankruptcy of our budget?
I'm willing to vote for an increase in taxes as long as I see the city isn't using it as a crutch to continue to do nothing regarding economic development. I voted for the fire parcel tax 6 years ago in the hope that the city would use the time to get its act together. After the five years was up, I felt Council had done nothing when it came to business development (in fact, I've never seen a council in Pacifica that was so business-hostile) so I voted no on Measure D.
I will continue to vote no until DeJarnatt, Digre, Vreeland and Lancelle are off Council, or until I see tangible evidence they've managed to improve the business climate in Pacifica. The latter is unlikely.
BTW Todd, I suggested 4 PM Sunday for the hike. John hasn't posted my comment about it yet. As I also mentioned, everyone's invited. Should we meet at the northwest corner of the golf course?
I agree with Steve.
I'm not against an increase in taxes in principle.
However, based on past behaviour, I have no faith that the revenue would be used in a prudent manner.
Our city staff and employees are working hard for us, you can see it every day. But if there is no money... do we tax ourselves more? Insist on major staffing cuts? Or maybe a combination of both plus other measures? That is the topic... what as a group of 40,000 are we willing to do to stave off bankruptcy of our budget?
Todd, what are you doing to starve off bankruptcy in your household budget?
Seriously do you ever think before you post?
Pacifica is the brother who came to you 4 years ago asking for money so he could repair his house: his roof leaks like a sieve during heavy rains. You gave him $20,000 only to find out he used it to put in a new pool and new landscaping.
Now he's coming to you again asking for more money to save his house because the roof has really gotten bad.
Do you give him the money?
Seriously the #1 thing we can do is replace the city council incumbents with challenger candidates: "people who live in the real world", people who can plan for city success and balance the city checkbook without encumbering or doing harm to the city infrastructure and population.
Ongoing staff cut-backs are directly related to the failure of this city council to do their job. So, using the transient recession as a "cop out" doesn't work, nor does the mantra "let's all work together", nor does the “irresponsible amnesia” of not recognizing past history.
What's the difference between more of the same and a new pro-economy city council majority of 3 challenger candidates? Priorities will change: whatever can be salvaged and turned-around will be, and this phoenix city may rise from the dead.
Meantime, no new taxes; vote them out.
Has anyone heard if all three incumbents filed, thus closing the election filing period on Friday, July 30th?
Kathy
How bout I keep the dog, you get the city debts?
sneaky pete
If I thought that the city had any sort of realistic plan to change our slide toward insolvency, I too would consider voting to increase my tax burden once again. Action on the payroll/pension problem is what's needed, the problem being that it is unsustainable.
There's a new study out, which I could not find in my piles of newspapers, that shows per capita overall tax burdens by county in California. Marin County ranks #1, and San Mateo Co. is #2.
Both per capita averages were well over $4,000 per person. San Francisco Co. didn't even come close at about $3,500 per person.
So I have to laugh at the argument that we aren't taxed enough. We in this county most certainly pay more than our fair share already.
Another possibility for saving money is to mimic the way Rohnert Park and Sunnyvale combine police and fire departments with cross training. Both police and fire are qualified to serve as either or. It allows for lower staffing levels of both departments and has been in use in both cities for decades. The biggest issue is finding police that want to fight fires and firemen that want to wear guns.
It makes sense as fire and police often show up for the same calls. It's no secret the vast majority of fire department calls are medical/rescue in nature not fire fighting.
I propose we take it a step further and cross train police/firefighter/librarians!
I say we not only cross train, we cross dress them!
Sneaky (Pete), its only fair. You keep the dog and the frogs and snakes, and I'll help the people who can turn the city and the debt around.
San Jose has a ballot measure to curb run away wages and benefits this November. It links pay and benefits to revenues, stopping the imbalance that is bankrupting municipalities all over the state. If passed the measure would require arbitration but would not allow the judge to award pay and benefit increases that are unfunded, like indexing.
There are lots of ideas being tried state wide that Pacifica could mimic.
Mr. Genius Todd Bray, got paid by the City Of Pacifica for the Waste Water Treatment plant while being a sitting planning commissioner. Can we say major conflict of interest.
Today's news of the state wanting to raise income tax and vehicle tax but lowering sales tax is a shame. Public employees do not create wealth like regular workers do yet when revenues are down and private employees are unemployed public sector solutions should reflect that contraction by concessions not tax increases. Where does it stop?
Todd, just trying to unscramble what you're saying.
1. Raise income tax and vehicle tax. These taxes are pretty low now. The sales tax increase was only for 2 years I think, so, does this mean that tax is just going back to where it was?
2. Public employees to not create wealth (they process wealth) although just like everyone they spend money and pay taxes which creates wealth; therefore, when revenues are down their salaries and benefits should not be increased. Is that what you mean?
Kathy, thank you for trying. Yes, I feel public employees pay/benefits should be indexed to revenues in some form or fashion.
Post a Comment