Saturday, August 28, 2010

The end of Half Moon Bay?

By Julia Scott
San Mateo County Times
Posted: 08/27/2010 11:00:00 PM PDT
Updated: 08/28/2010 07:52:51 AM PDT
HALF MOON BAY -- Between budget losses and lawsuit payments, Half Moon Bay's financials have become so dire that if a local sales tax measure doesn't pass this November, officials say they may have to disincorporate.
City leaders have been using the "D" word for a few weeks now as they try to persuade voters to pass Measure K, a one-cent sales tax increase that would help the city balance its budget with an extra infusion of $1.4 million per year for the next seven years.
Dissolving Half Moon Bay -- handing the city's budget, operations and services to San Mateo County -- would be an absolute last resort, but the city may not have many other options left, City Councilman John Muller said.
"The council has done everything in its power to keep the city whole," Muller said. "If it doesn't pass, we could seriously not be in business much longer."
At first glance, disincorporation could save taxpayers some money: no more city administration to support. Police services would be contracted out, and the county would cover planning, building and public works projects from its offices in Redwood City.
On the other hand, county officials said there is a chance that locals would end up paying more than they do now for fewer services.
City Manager Michael Dolder admits disincorporation is one of the options on the table now. The City Council already cut $900,000 from the current budget -- including half its employees -- and imposed
furloughs on those who remain. Some of the cuts were needed to pay for the Beachwood lawsuit settlement, a $15 million burden the city will shoulder in bond payments for the next 20 years. Despite those efforts, the city will finish the current fiscal year with a deficit north of $500,000. And tourist dollars, the city's economic mainstay, aren't likely to flow in anytime soon.
"We're digging ourselves into a hole and the hole keeps getting deeper regardless of whether the sales tax comes in," Dolder warned.
Too much to lose
Across the state, cities are struggling to provide the services residents have come to expect with fewer revenues and staff. People are looking for a way out, according to Bill Chiat, executive director of the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions.
"There certainly have been cities in this economic climate that have inquired about disincorporation," said Chiat. "But once people who talk about it actually find out what happens in disincorporation, they generally don't want to pursue that path."
Dolder ticks off the drawbacks of disincorporation: a county-controlled police department; sporadic road maintenance; no City Council to whom to complain; and no recreation department to offer yoga classes or soccer workshops.
"The majority of residents in San Mateo County choose to be in a city because they get better service. If the county provided better service, more people would choose to be in the county," asserted Dolder.
Ironically, Half Moon Bay chose to incorporate in 1959 in large part because residents wanted a local police force and local control of street maintenance.
Councilman Muller was born in Half Moon Bay. For him, disincorporation would be more than a question of losing face -- it would be a loss of identity.
"Do you have pride in the city? Do you want keep it as Half Moon Bay? Do you want to have local control over your government?" he asked. "Over the hill, nobody knows you."
Debt would remain
Disincorporation is so rare in California that it's almost without precedent. The last city to do it, Cabazon in Riverside County, had fewer than 2,000 residents and no functional government to speak of when it voted to give up cityhood.
The process is so complicated that county officials said they don't know what kinds of services the Board of Supervisors would choose to provide or how much they would cost.
Although the law lays out a clear procedure for disincorporation, including public meetings and a final majority vote by residents, it's unclear how it could work from a practical standpoint, said Martha Poyatos, executive director of the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
"We're in uncharted territory," she said.
One thing is certain: disincorporation is not a bailout. The county would lay claim to revenues, including Half Moon Bay's property taxes, sales taxes and hotel taxes, but not its liabilities. Today's Half Moon Bay residents would be required to assume the debt burden of Beachwood bond payments, which would likely be added as a lien on their properties, according to Assistant County Controller Bob Adler.
The county currently takes in 21.7 percent of all property taxes that don't go to the state. The county cannot unilaterally raise taxes to make up for a loss. So service cutbacks are a possibility, Adler said.
"The costs don't go away just because the cities go away. You still need to provide the services. You still have the same problems out there," he said.
The rural city of Isleton, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, toyed with disincorporation in 2008 when it faced a budget deficit of $1.12 million (the city only has a $1.35 million budget). In the end, officials decided to sell bonds to pay off its debts. Now, it is struggling to make bond payments.
"I've cut everything I can cut and we're right up against the wall," Isleton City Manager Bruce Pope said. "We're not (facing disincorporation) now, but we could go there at any time."
Contact Julia Scott at 650-348-4340.
Disincorporation: how would it work?
A City Council, school district, special district or group of residents can initiate disincorporation with the Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCo, by presenting a petition signed by 25 percent of voters.
LAFCo would then hold public hearings and choose whether to affirm the proposal with conditions or deny it.
A special election would be held, in which a majority of voters have to approve the terms of disincorporation.
The county Board of Supervisors would work with LAFCo and the city on disposition of the city's assets.
Note: Disincorporation proceedings can be subject to legal challenges.
Sources: LAFCo; California Government Code

Disincorporation: what half moon bay loses
Local police force
City Council
Street
maintenance
Recreation department


Submitted by Jim Alex

177 comments:

Kathy Meeh said...

Another "our environment is NOT our economy" (Markus) eco-tourism economic plan for their coastal city. This article is probably the intended 2010 tax scare for Half Moon Bay residents, and maybe that city just needs to learn from Pacifica how to float and flip more bonds, and forge law suit "savings plans".

HMB is finally in the process of improving, updating and increasing the capacity of their WWTP, so that cost is passed directly to property owners-- no city general fund problem. Learn from Pacifica, its easy to pad cost into that bill with "pet" city council projects, skimming loopholes, and high administrative fees.

And, whether intended or not, given the focus of their anti-economic questions, Loma Prieta Sierra Club will be supporting the least likely candidates to bring-in a balanced city economy. Thus, to paraphrase a comment by Steve Sinai: "If city council candidates are endorsed by Loma Prieta Sierra Club, don't vote for them".

Half Moon Bay has some wealthy residents, maybe they will hold a "save our city" raffle. Otherwise, similar to Pacifica, hopefully HMB residents will "figure-it-out" this time, and support pro-economic city council candidates who will usher-in a new era of rational, responsible balanced city government.

Default government by county? Local coastal examples: Montara, El Granada, and Princeton-- large houses dot the land (not owned by GGNRA unproductive "open space"). No concerns about city pride, more like "out of sight, out of mind." But, maybe the highway will get fixed, that would be good.

Anonymous said...

"...maybe that city just needs to learn from Pacifica how to float and flip more bonds, and forge law suit "savings plans".

That's right, kick 'em when they're down.

todd bray said...

Or perhaps Pacifica should annex the entire coastal region down to Pescadero.

Anonymous said...

I like it. The new city could be called Pacific Coast.

Anonymous said...

Todd

Since you seem to have all the answers why don't you run for City Council?

the other anonymous said...

no and you cannot talk about how toddy bray was paid thousands of dollars by the city when he was a planning commissioner to make drawings of vreeland's city hall by the sea

Anonymous said...

so i cannot mention how todd bray was bad mouthing peebles as a sitting planning commissioner before any project was brought before the planning commission????????

Steve Sinai said...

Anon, I will keep deleting your comments as long as their only purpose is to further your personal vendetta against other blog participants.

Anonymous said...

You call it "vendetta". I call it "tough love".

Inquiring Minds said...

So Steve Sinai decides what is "truth" and what is "vendetta" . . . how convenient . . .

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Steve Sinai said...

If you have genuine evidence of wrongdoing, present it. Repeating old, exaggerated rumors doesn't count as "truth."

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

the other anonymous said...

How can there be evidence of wrongdoing if the police refused to file charges against peebles?????

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Anonymous said...

"He who lives by the censor, dies by the censor."

Steve Sinai said...

I believe filing false charges is illegal. Was Todd prosecuted for it?

Apparently, you feel that if you repeat it enough, people will believe it. Brilliant way to argue a point. Reminds me of how a 3-year old would argue.

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Anonymous said...

being a hypocrite...
being a hypocrite...
being a hypocrite...

Steve Sinai said...

Anon, don't you have some armadillos you need to run over or something?

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

the other anonymous said...

"Anon, don't you have some armadillos you need to run over or something?"

is this fact or rumor?

Steve Sinai said...

In case anyone's wondering, this is Jeff Simons who's doing all the posting.

Anonymous said...

i demand sinai show irrefutable evidence of people running over armadillos or else he needs to delete his own post. :)

Anonymous said...

so i see now, the problem exists only when you or friends bray, butler and scotty are challenged. I get it now. Stupid me!

So Fix Pacifica really is a ruse. Thanks for confirming that.

Steve Sinai said...

"...so i see now, the problem exists only when you or friends bray, butler and scotty are challenged"

Unlike you, they seem to be able to come to this blog and argue their points without personally attacking people by name.

Jeff Simons said...

in case anyone is wondering, that is Steve Sinai cutting and pasting and being a hypocrite

Anonymous said...

you never, ever ask them for proof to back up their statements/allegations. you are truly a hypocrite!

Steve Sinai said...

They haven't been coming onto the blog making reckless accusations against people.

the other anonymous said...

"They haven't been coming onto the blog making reckless accusations against people."

except the golfers, of course. :)

Anonymous said...

i will wait until sinai sleeps then i will comment bomb the shit out of this blog

Anonymous said...

and claiming that the RLF and SFGS will go extinct if SPGC continues.

Steve Sinai said...

Todd and Scotty were both for keeping the golf course. Ian wants to see it closed, but he wasn't attacking anyone to make his point.

Anonymous said...

New name:

Copy and Paste and Censor Sinai

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Steve Sinai said...

Do you really think your tantrum is making you look good in the eyes of others, Jeff?

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

be back soon... count on it!

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

Cut & Paste & Censor Sinai - LMAO!

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

delete delete delete delete

Anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who follows this blog knows that this is Jeff Simons. He's the only one who exhibits this kind of behavior. And to think he ran for City Council ...

Anonymous said...

great moments in hypocrisy:

"I never post Anonymously" -- Steve Sinai

Anonymous said...

Again, you would love to think this is only one person.

Anonymous said...

"Again, you would love to think this is only one person."

he has no idea who or what he is up against. but if it makes him feel better making baseless accusations while he censors other people . . .

the other anonymous said...

Todd Bray tried to file false charges against Don Peebles. This is fact.

Kathy Meeh said...

No doubt the current 8 year city council and their friends worked hard to defeat the quality Measure L development that would have brought economic relief, jobs, services, civic benefit to this city. Todd was aggressive in that effort. Let's move on.

The city is proposing a redevelopment plan for the quarry currently that includes 1) an area for commerce (quarry specific plan), and an area for 160 housing units (low-income and affordable housing implementation plan). These plans if built seem to be not as classy, not as focused, not as economically viable but "something" vs. nothing.

The failure and accountability is that of city council leadership to educate their base.

Anon, if you think FixPacifica is a ruse, try Riptide. We're doing just fine here, except this kind of "truth absolutism" is not helpful. Isn't encouraging diverse dialog a positive democratic virtue?

As for Todd's comment that Pacifica might annex coastside cities, I thought that was a good counter to my comment-- though from my view Daly City would be the more likely candidate to do that.

Anonymous said...

sinai must have had a nervous breakdown . . .

Scotty said...

I'm being entirely serious -- You really should seek counseling and ask a professional to determine whether you are exhibiting paranoid and obsessive/compulsive tendencies. If you don't choose to seek some counseling, you should at least step away from the computer and spend some time with someone you love. I know you'll take this as an attack (like you do everything else), but it isn't meant that way.

Steve Sinai said...

"sinai must have had a nervous breakdown . . . "

Sinai had to go to Home Depot.

Steve Sinai said...

"I never post Anonymously" -- Steve Sinai

I just did a search for this quote. It doesn't exist, and was made up.

chris porter said...

Hi Todd..If you tried to file charges against Peebles, I'm sure you would admit it. If you didn't, say it so we can get some meaningful discussion going on here. This is a very serious situation happening in HMB that could easily happen here. I know people who have lived in HMB their whole lives that are very nervous about this entire problem.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not Todd tried to file charges against Peebles is irrelevant to a meaningful discussion about HMB's situation. And I disagree that disincorporation "could easily happen here." It can't easily happen in HMB. Read the article. You have to have a petition signed by 25% of the voters.

Thomas Clifford said...

Disincorporation is clearly neither easy or desirable. 25% of the voter to just get the prosess started. Public hearings to work out the details and to decide to go forward. a special election with a majority voting to disincorporate. An what do the HMB voters get?
The county get all the revenues.
The property owners get the debts in the form of liens on their property.[Just try to sell your property when that pops up on the title search]
Services will most likly be down graded.
County government will probably be less responsive to the local citizens needs.I would look long and hard at other options before I put disincorporation on the table.

Steve Sinai said...

The comment about HMB threatening bankruptcy to scare its residents into voting for a new sales tax is probably correct. It gets people's attention, but the more I study it, the more I feel bankruptcy's a cure worse than the disease.

If I remember right, 1/3 of HMB's budget is devoted to paying off the Beachwood legal judgment. As far as I'm concerned, that's the lesson to be learned from HMB. If you keep blocking developers with legal tricks and stalling tactics, as Pacifica has continually done, the city will eventually lose a judgment in court. We're playing a big game of legal and financial Russian Roulette.

BTW - Thomas, thanks for coming onto the site and sharing your opinions. I hope the other candidates do the same.

todd bray said...

Steve the lesson here is to not declare an area a wetland if you are a municipality. Leave determinations like that to state and federal agencies.

Thomas Clifford said...

Steve,thanks for the welcome. I also hope the other candidates will join the conversation. We can not fix Pacifica if we do not talk to and learn from each other.

Steve Sinai said...

I agree about who decides on wetlands, Todd.

Thomas Clifford said...

The City Council and the Planning Commission are have a joint study session on September 1,2010

The subject of the study session is the Pacifica General Plan Existing Conditions and Key Issues Report.
The Agenda is
1. Summary of the General Plan Update Community Forums: Ideas and Priorities for the long Team Future of Pacifica

2.Presentation of Existing Conditions and Key issues Report- Pacifica General Plan

3. Public Comment

4. Council/Commission Discussion of Concerns and Priorities

5. Next Steps

The Watcher said...

2 incumbent candidates on council, 2 incumbent candidates on planning. What kind of spin are we going to see on Wed. nite? Touchy-feely babble or are there going to be serious discussions on the sad state of affairs Pacifica is in due to the very measures that this council and planning commission have imposed. Wed will be another giant waste of time, money, and staff.

Thomas Clifford said...

Watcher: I hope you will come to the study session and share your vision for Pacifica's future.
I will listen to everyone who speaks.

Although Leo and I have had the honor of seving Pacifica as Planning Commissioners that does not make us incumbents in the City Council Election.

When did service to community become a bad thing?

Kathy Meeh said...

Thanks for the invitation to the City Council and Planning Commission joint study session. Hope its televised.

I think most of us and the County all understand what it takes to make a "sustainable" city. Here's the Sustainable San Mateo County 4/10 Report Card. (page 5). Pacifica's disappointing contribution is on page 61.

Over the past 8+ years city council incumbents have neglected the economic component and overloaded this city with unproductive open space which has also contributed an adverse effect on the environment as well as social equity.

Commissions and committees were appointed by incumbent city council members, who have managed this city selectively (without broad based representation).

Having said that I think most of us are more interested in your record, your ideas and your solutions to fix Pacifica. Needed tax revenue (other than tax Pacificans). The 8 year incumbents rejected opportunities to develop the quarry, the old WWTP, didn't fix highway 1 congestion, made "recreation" our economic goal, "saved downtown Mori Point".

So, for all of you who are candidates other than incumbents what is your plan to fix Pacifica?

Anonymous said...

So what do the "business" candidates know about anything connected to Pacifica's environmental issues?
What have they done in participating and knowing something?
Haven't seen any evidence of that as of yet.
You can blow all you want about Measure L, it's history.

Thomas Clifford for City council said...

Hi Kathy
Yes the study session will be televised. I strongly recommend that if you want to have an impact on the next General plan you come to the meeting.
I believe that rather then fight over weather we have to much open space we should focus
on improving and expanding the commerical areas we do have.
The Manor shopping center now has two anchor stores Walgreens and Safeway it is time for the owners of the shops there to band together and up-grade their store fronts. I have talked to some of them an they are in favor of doing just that. The Planning department must keep pressure on the owners of the Shell station to clean up that corner an reopen the station. I keep in close contact with Mr. Crabtree on this issuse and he assures me that Shell is moving forward with plans to reopen.

The WWTP and Southern Palmetto Ave. must be made into a destination for tourist an Pacifican a like.
1. A high class hotel with a concert hall or convention center or a cardroom coupled togther with Top-notch one of a kind stores.

2.A new playland by the beach.

3. a Bordello [not really] but you get the idea people want to have fun and they will spend Money while their doing it.

Linda Mar Beach has a million visitor a year and right now we get little from that foot traffic. Across the highway is an under used Sam-Tran parking lot.If a partnership could be form between Pacifica and Sam-Trans a mixuse/transit hub could be built there. The Parking Underground a Plaza out front for the patron of the stores on the ground floor and beach condo's/offices on the top floor. A place to work or live, a place to shop, and a traffic hub that whould connect everyone to Bart. We could add to our tax base,provide housing and jobs, and lighten the impact on Highway one all at the same time.

These are Just some of the idea's I have for Pacifica's Future.

Now to how to make these or any other Idea's happen.
First Declare a commercial area an Enterprize Zone.
Second Streamline Permitting for the area by preapproving it for the type of business that is desired.
Third have at least one staff member from the planning/economic development department Identify and contact successful bussinesses of the type we want and recruit them to open here. offer them incentives. Faster permit apporvals. Fee reductions or waivers. Zoning changers if need.

I have more but I need to get up at 5:00 to keep my own bussiness on an even keel. ..so later if your interested in hearing more.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon, we're living with the consequences of inadequate city council planning. This issue is not environment vs. economy. Its solid sustainable planning as described in the link. Develop the quarry for economic and service advantage. You have referred to Measure L (2006), there was also Measure E (2002)-- 2 missed economic, service, jobs opportunities. Money to run this city thrown away is not recoverable.

Meantime, the 8 year city council economic plan has been all about volunteerism, fees and taxes, and its our future.

Tom, your ideas sound interesting, thank you for thoughtfully responding. We'll continue another time.

Markus said...

Anon @ 8:57, So what have the incumbents done to fix anything in this town for the past decade? We are now $15 million in the red and counting. The environment hasn't gotten any better under their watch. In fact our "state of the art" sewer water treatment plant spilled 7.5 million gallons of mostly untreated sewage into the creek and ocean in January 08, resulting in a $2.3 million fine and a lawsuit. The money that was slated for plant maintenance was mostly used for other projects. Our sewer collection pipe network is full of leaks and falling apart resulting in additional spills. We have no money to fix it. Talk about doing something for the environment, or more like doing something to the environment. For this city to be successful, it must take care of our environment as well as provide other needed services and maintain our infrastructure. Wise promotion of commercial and business development is a must to build up a commercial tax base. Its a symbiotic relationship. There must be a balance. We can't have one without the other. We are well aware of what we've had in the past 8 years. Our environment is NOT our economy. Our environment is a part of our economy but needs help from our commercial and business enterprises. Tell me how the old sewer water treatment plant has helped this city in the past decade? Here we have a city owned property, appraised at $8 million, just sitting there creating nothing but added blight and vermin. This prime beach front property located near a fishing pier, can be a gold mine for our city and help sustain our environment as well as provide it's citizens with needed services. We are supporting candidates with a balanced vision for this city. No reputable developer will touch Pacifica as long as the present "our environment is our economy" council members majority is running this city.

Markus said...

Thank you Thomas for your comment. This is what we are looking for from all non incumbent candidates. Another question for you. What is your vision for the quarry?
Thanks

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

O.K. Markus
Here I go walking through the MINEFIELD !!!
Please don't shoot me until I get to the other side.
If after all the agencies that have a say in what happens in the quarry, the Fed's [Endangered Species Act.,wetlands protection,Etc.] The State [Calif. Fish and wildlife, Coastal Commission, Ect.] decide that there is a buildable site left after the protected Area's and buffer zones are map out.

If it is possiable I would like to see a Mix use development that connects to the Rockaway Beach Bussiness District. Allowing that commerical Area to reach crital Mass.

As a sitting Planning Commission I must reserve judgement on any project until it is brought before The Commission with all its reports and testamoney.

As a citzen of Pacifica I hope for a balanced use of the property.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Clifford wrote:
"...rather then fight over weather we have to much open space...to clean up that corner an reopen the station...made into a destination for tourist an Pacifican a like...a cardroom coupled togther...spend Money while their doing it...a million visitor a year...The Parking Underground a Plaza out front for the patron of the stores on the ground floor...a traffic hub that whould connect...contact successful bussinesses...Faster permit apporvals...Zoning changers if need..to keep my own bussiness on an even keel. ..so later if your interested..."

Perhaps Mr. Clifford is a product of the Pacifica School System, but can't we do better? His poor grammar and misspellings in this post make it almost impossible to comprehend its meaning. I'm not just talking typos here.

Steve Sinai said...

I'm more interested in the candidates' ideas and history than their spelling and grammar. Thomas should be given credit for being the only candidate willing to come onto Fix Pacifica to discuss his views.

I was disappointed to find out Thomas was only joking when he mentioned the bordello.

Mr. Sir said...

I'm pretty lenient about spelling and grammar online having made my share of unintentionally outgrageous errors. It's too easy to get distracted while posting, or editing, and if you try posting using a phone/blackberry, good luck.

That being said, official statements from candidates and office-holders ought to be clear, coherent and error free. Reading Mayor Digre's recent statements in the Tribune in recent weeks makes me feel embarassed for her.

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

Boom!!! You got me. If you truly could not figure out what I meant, please call me and I will explain it to you. I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia. Spelling and grammar as a result have always been a problem for me. I have a T-shirt that says it all: "Bad spellers of the world, untie!" I will try to do better in the future.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry. We all suffer from some type of dyslexia. This is a pretty open blog. Not like Riptide that only says nice things in favor of the present council members. I am start to believe that you would make a pretty reasonable council member. Good luck.!

Kathy Meeh said...

Tom, its probably a good thing the city wants to move forward with regulation approval of the quarry in advance. Then, as you've mentioned we'll see. Frogs and snakes may not be that fond of limestone and green stone, and the city seems to think mixed-use is the answer. Too bad city council (including the incumbents) worked so hard to defeat quarry development prior (2x).

Please continue to discuss your vision, most of us are interested in a city with a future. And while Anon @ 8:35am is perfect in spelling and short sentence grammar, in his/her own words he/she lacks "comprehension".

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your responses Mr. Clifford. I admit to being a bit concerned about your candidacy since I have heard that you are the candidate of choice for the "No on L"/PSD crowd, along with Ms. Digre.

I believe a variation of the aforementioned HMB-Keenan litigation has already occurred in Pacifica with respect to the Fish and Bowl. Additionally, the Quarry might also present some interesting parallels to Beachwood. Therefore, I was hoping that you would be so kind as to answer the following questions?

1. Assuming you were on the HMB City Council, how would you have handled the HMB-Keenan Beachwood situation from day one?

2. How about after the verdict from the first lawsuit?

3. And finally, how about after the federal appellate decision?

And finally, I really am not too concerned about your dyslexia unless it causes you to rely exclusively on the interpretations and opinions of the City Attorney and/or causes you some confusion between the "Yes" and "No" buttons.

Thanks in advance for your responses and good luck to you in the upcoming election.

Anonymous said...

Still no answer as to what exactly the positions of the "pro-business" candidates are.
Mr. Clifford is engaging, how 'bout those "business people?"
Does Kathy speak for them or do they have a voice of their own???

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon, tonight at the joint city council/planning commission meeting the general plan consultants said the city has enough "open space" (in fact over-abundance). The city also lacks city services, and tax revenue-- consider there may be a correlation.

Unlike cities well planned for humans (and dogs) this "open space" is not distributed within the city as parks. We actually have a shortage of "open space" (parks) within the city. Our "open space" is in big unproductive, unusable chunks, except for trails and wild life (such as it is). These big chucks of "open space" were also mentioned as a fire hazard.

Anyone with a name and brain can figure-out why the city needs a much better economy, and if running for city council should be able to figure-out how to get there. Do you use good grammar in short sentence structure and spell well?

Anonymous said...

I guess it's a no-win situation in your eyes?

Are you saying our open spaces need swing-sets and slides

If Pacifica puts in a trail on a portion of open space to "make it productive", you complain about the trail.

If Pacifica puts in a bike lane on a portion of open space to "make it productive", you complain about the lane.

Of course, a dog park is an A-OK use of open space, because I'm guessing you are a dog owner, so it caters to your own interests. I guess hikers and bikers can go bug off though.

"All this open space represents a fire hazard" is one of the most absurd arguments against open space I've heard in a while. It's up there with "we had to destroy the village to save the village."

You should move to Daly City. They did a great job of getting the most out of their "open space."

Paul Slavin said...

Mr. Clifford, nice to see you on the blog. What has been your position on the Sharp Park Golf Course? Thanks.

Mr. Sir said...

Anon @ 6:21,

There are people in this nation who feel threatened by naturally wild and unchecked spaces. They feel the need to impose some sort of human order or control upon these open spaces in order to feel secure with themselves. I'm afraid much of our nation's heritage is based on its citizens' unchecked urges to "conquer" and "tame" the wilderness and its inhabitants (both human and animal).

Vestiges of this warped view of the world exist in our own little town where people look upon Mori Point with unabashed disgust and see in their mind's eye a Walmart there with the surrounding lands paved over and striped for parking. To them this is beauty and progress.

Thank God we have legislators and rulemaking organizations representing us and who have set in place a means to protect us from people who see natural beauty only in terms of assets on a balance sheet to be used up and exploited.

Scotty said...

It's always disturbing to me when I'm reminded that there are just as many paranoid fringe types on the left as there are on the right, and that they are over-represented in Pacifica politics. It's not wanting to "conquer nature" to recognize the reality that the city being able to pay its bills is more important to the population of Pacifica than pleasing a few hikers who already have vastly more options in Pacifica than they do in most parts of the Bay Area.

Also, the ridiculous Daly City straw man argument is tiresome. There's definitely lots of room between what Pacifica looks like now and Daly City.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon/Mr. Sir (possibly the same) information about "fire hazard" comes from the research done by the paid City General Plan consultant experts, whereas your "opinion" comes from that voice inside your head? Gosh, why didn't the city just ask you and save the money?

Information about the distribution of "open space" comes from the same experts. Ditto, my prior gosh comment.

Scotty's comments @ 11:14 are relevant. And, because Pacifica has too much "out-back", there is no space for "Walmart", a business park, or much of anything else (including jobs, services, tax revenue). It was even a struggle for the city to find room for a proposed civic "dog park" mostly paid for and maintained by volunteers (whereas most cities pay for and maintain dog parks).

Paul Slaving asked a good question of Tom Clifford @8:32am. Sharp Park 18 hole Golf course is "open space", is that "open space" just a little too civilized for you? Pacifica's
commercial economy so weak that the restaurant and retail concessions there produce the 27th highest city tax revenue.

Yes, those of you would turn this city into the outback have won, and those of us who are citizens with normal, balanced city infrastructure expectations have lost. After 8 years of "fooled you, no growth" city council leadership, the question is whether beyond a failing infrastructure the city can avoid bankruptcy (cost shared with property owners).

Anonymous said...

Scotty said:
"It's not wanting to "conquer nature" to recognize the reality that the city being able to pay its bills is more important to the population of Pacifica..."

The past few City Council elections and defeat of Measure L have absolutely proven you wrong, Scotty. Sorry...

BTW, why so angry, Scotty? Perhaps you should seek help.

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

Anon 6:04pm
I believe the last of the Fish & Bowl lawsuits has been finalized and the City of Pacifica prevailed. Councilman DeJarnett made the announcment at a recent City council meeting.

The Planning Commission recently granted a one year extension of the approvals for the Fish & Bowl project.

I don't know that parallels to Beachwood exist in the Quarry. I suspect that Mr. Peebles and his team would have followed up with a lawsuit if they felt they had a case.

I don't feel comfortable playing 'what if' with HMB City Council decisions. I don't know the details of the early decision making process, just what I read in the paper. Besides knowing the final outcome, how could I not say that I would do it differantly. I am sure the HMB City Council would like a do-over.

You do bring up a good point, anyone elected to the Pacifica City council should study this case to make sure that we [The City of Pacifica] do not make the same mistakes.

A smart man/woman learns from his/her mistakes.
A wise man/woman learns from someone else's.

I will of course listen to the advice of The City Attorney. If I am uncomfortable with that advice I will ask questions, and if need be I will ask that a second opinion be sought.

As an Elected City Offical I will neither be a blind follower or a loose cannon.

Please put your mind at ease that I know the difference between the yes and no buttons.

Paul Slavin
I am in favor of maintaining The Sharp Park Golf Course with only minor changes to the greens closest to the bearm. This plan protects not only the habitats of the RLF and the SFGS but also a thriving business.

I have been to every meeting of the Pacifica Save Sharp Park Golf Course Task Force. I attended the first three meetings as a member of the public and then was appointed the Planning Commission liaison.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Clifford

How will you seperate yourself from Vreeland and Degree.

Everyone tells me you are anti any developement.

I hear the monster house idea was all yours.

I don't think I can vote for you, being you are so anti-development.

Lance said...

Mr Clifford, if Peebles had sued, what would the prize have been? Pacifica? He'd still have to go through all the regulatory agencies for an approval. Why the snipe at Peebles?

Scotty said...

"BTW, why so angry, Scotty?"

Because you anti-development fanatics and your proxies on the council are running this city into bankruptcy, and that has a direct impact on our ability to fund things like parks, safety, and other social services. How can you not be angry?

Anonymous said...

Re-directing funds intended for sewer maintenance into the General Fund is a problem that has nothing to do with preserving open space, sorry.

City pension liabilities outpacing current funding is an issue that has little to do with what one thinks should be done with the quarry, sorry.

25% (rough guess) of Pacifica's[i]EXISTING[/i] retail space sitting empty has nothing to do with the GGNRA and Mori Point, sorry.

You have a right to be angry about those issues, but have the intellectual fortitude to admit that they're subjects quite different from, and unrelated to, Pacifica's natural spaces.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Clifford said: "I don't feel comfortable playing 'what if' with HMB City Council decisions. I don't know the details of the early decision making process, just what I read in the paper. Besides knowing the final outcome, how could I not say that I would do it differantly. I am sure the HMB City Council would like a do-over."

Jim Vreeland couldn't have said it better!

Anonymous said...

Still haven't heard what the "pro-business" candidates are going to do to "fix Pacifica."

Peebles and Chop Keenan can go blow as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous said...

"Because you anti-development fanatics and your proxies on the council are running this city into bankruptcy, and that has a direct impact on our ability to fund things like parks, safety, and other social services. How can you not be angry?"

See Scotty, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your anger has clouded your ability to focus on solutions to the problem. You can only see one solution to Pacifica's financial woes - build it and the money will come. You call us "anti-develeopment fanatics" but I much prefer "smart growth pragmatists". Your anger allows you to see only one side of the balance sheet - i.e., revenues. I, however, maintaining my composure, am able to see the big picture which includes costs. Revenues are variable and difficult to control. Any CEO/CFO worth their golden parachutte knows that costs are always the low-hanging fruit. Even if Measure L passed it would be many years until any potential positive cash flow would be realized. In the mean time, considerable city financial resources would be expended with respect to supporting infrastructure. Many private and public entities have experienced significant cost savings in terms of salaries and pensions through the outsourcing of their employees/services. That would be a good start.

I value our open space and recreational opportunities. For me to give any of it up there would have to be a considerable payoff. Scotty, you have failed to convince me of that payoff. Perhaps if you spent less time on this blog and more time enjoying the recreational opportunities available to you here in Pacifica, your anger would subside and you could offer real solutions rather than attacks.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon @6:14pm, are you the guy with a PhD in grammar and good spelling? Maybe take a general logic class, what you said makes no sense.

8 year city council knew better, but failed to plan for the needs of this city (yes we live in a city). And that failure has crippled our community. Look up Sustainable Economic Development, a very "green" concept: ecology, economy, civic-- balanced and functional.

Funneling $700,000 annually from the WWTP to pay ordinary city general fund bills, while neglecting the WWTP plant structural/financial integrity and telling citizens "never been in better financial shape" is a short-cut at best. BTW that money was taken directly out of the pockets of property owners. Not much of the plant debt has been paid down, the plant itself has some problems. The plant frequently smells (toxic fumes), then there are the periodic sewer spill fines (paid for by property owners). Maybe we need a new WWTP, but wait the debt on this plant has not been significantly paid down. Then there is the old WWTP plant which continues to be a 12 year blighted revenue loss.

City pension liabilities are known in advance by city council members and requires city financial/economic planning. So, when productive land is given-over to unproductive "open space" exclusively, that cash producing engine is lost-- lost forever. Mori Point could be considered a prime example. "Saving" 1/3 of Mori Point for "open space" near the ocean would have made more sense. My understanding is that the "no growth" Planning Commission majority at that time blocked development of that property-- even though Pacificans voted to develop it. "Saving 100% of Mori Point" does not provide jobs, services and tax revenue to pay city bills.

Anon, you mix-up issues and throw-out a lot of deflection, even resorting to "you must be angry" verbal slurs. Yet, the economy of this city has been mangled, so isn't recognition of that fact merely a reflection of ethical virtue?

Clear thinking Pacificans who understand why their city is unnecessarily inadequate, this time might rationally vote to "throw-out the incumbents" in favor of those who have the desire to clean-up the city mess and can.

Anon @ 8:11pm maybe you can read the candidate statements on this blog and figure-it-out, or not. Think we all understand what is pro-economy vs. more "nothing for Pacifica".

Anonymous said...

Unproductive open space. Yeah, that's the problem. We shoulda built on 2/3 of Mori Point. Yeah, that woulda made things better. We shoulda built more condos. Yeah, that's what we shoulda done.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon @8:27pm, you say "call us "anti-development fanatics but I much prefer "smart growth pragmatists". Guess this promoted theory is proven by "if you don't build it they won't come?"

But, Anon Pacifica has been working that "plan" for 8 years+. Outcome: the city is broke, in deep debt, and the city infrastructure is rotting. Unfortunately, your "theory" does not follow conventionally understood guidelines, is not supported by the General Fund Consultants (9/1 meeting), nor is it supported by any prior city economic development experts. Also, it does not conform to the generally understood guidelines of "sustainable economic development".

Keeping your balanced "smart-growth pragmatic" plan clear, think Tod Schlesinger expressed that as: nothing + nothing = nothing, or nothing - nothing = nothing.

Any "smart-growth" pragmatic person might be angry that you bother to twist and insult the intelligence of those of us who see through your verbal nonsense.

Again, Anon @ 9:23pm, the people of Pacifica voted to develop Mori Point as a resort convention center. As I recall there was a lot of open space, and the hotel setting would have provided jobs, services, fun, and tax revenue. Yes that was a better choice.

Also, unlike the National Parks GGNRA Mori Point property, a private development would have roads that conform to state approved standards, and emergency and fire trucks would have access and not be locked-out. This is a city and citizen safety issue.

Markus said...

Anon @ 8:48 PM. "You call us "anti-develeopment fanatics" but I much prefer "smart growth pragmatists". Semantics doesn't change reality. Tell me how your "smart growth pragmatism" has worked for Pacifica in the past decade? Anon @ 6:14 PM. "Re-directing funds intended for sewer maintenance into the General Fund is a problem that has nothing to do with preserving open space, sorry." Wow, how is that for distorted logic. I guess the 7.5 million gallon sewage spill happened in a vacuum. It has everything to do with preserving or in this case polluting our open spaces, not to mention the $2.3 million fine and pending law suit by an environmental group, we Pacificans are on the hook for. Haven't you ever heard of Cause and Effect? Simply amazing.

Anonymous said...

Markus, you lumped me in with the "anti-development" blamed that having that attitude for Pacifica's current woes.

I simply point out how -- for example -- building something at the old WWTP a couple of years ago would address the problems we face currently?

Steve Sinai said...

Gee, with all this "productive" open space, you'd think we'd have the strongest economy in the county. Instead, we have the weakest economy in the county, because there's nothing to buy here. And frankly, our open space is nothing special. Who comes to Pacifica to walk along a trail next to the highway? Nobody I know.

"Smart growth pragmatists" is just a more acceptable term for "no growth extremists". By definition, they don't consider any growth to be smart. The result is a run-down, shabby city.

Chop Keenan may "blow", but thanks to the Sierra Club and other "smart growth pragmatists", he's blowing all the way to the bank with HMB's money. We've been lucky it hasn't happened in Pacifica.

Smart Growth Pragmatist said...

Like we keep telling you geniuses, the people of Pacifica have spoken and they have spoken with their votes. Measure E - DEAD! Measure L - DEAD! Hinton - GONE! DeJarnatt, Digre, Vreeland, Lancelle - all re-elected by the smart growth pragmatists of Pacifica who prefer the "run-down, shabby-city" they chose to move to some time ago. You guys remind me of the types who think they will be able to change their spouse's abusive behavior once they marry them.

But what is REALLY incredible about all of you "Fix Pacificans" is that none of you have said a word about cutting costs. I offered a suggestion. You have all completely and conveniently ignored it. This is why I would never take any of you seriously - especially with some of the unintelligible rants you have exhibited on this blog.

Steve Sinai said...

We "Fix Pacificans" are perfectly willing to cut costs, but at some point you need to increase revenues. You can't do that without economic development.

The city was able to manage before because it was good at panhandling money from the state and county. Those days are over.

Anonymous said...

You guys don't understand.

If you no-growthers would just put a Quizno's and a Payday Advance in at Mori Point, Pacifica would be awash in surplus cash, unemployment would be 3%, our pension obligations would be fullfilled, and all our empty storefronts would be bustling with new tentants.

We could rename Pacifica "El Dorado."

Kathy Meeh said...

"No-growth" @11:23pm, 9/2. You have offered no sustainable economic solutions. The city budget and infrastructure have been cut and we have been living with financial bare bones during the entire 8 year tenure of the current year city council, now compounded, with city structural infrastructure needs neglected.

And you are now you are calling yourself a "smart growth pragmatist", funny! What part is 1) smart, 2) what part is growth, 3) what part is 3) pragmatic? I'm sure we will all want to hear about that.

Scotty said...

"Smart Growth": And you call me angry!?? You definitely need to cut down on the caffeine or something.

What departments are you suggesting that we outsource? Police? Fire? Your suggestion is as well thought out as our leaders who spout silly slogans like "our environment is our economy" while ignoring the numbers.

Steve Sinai said...

It's tough for the "smart-growth pragmatists," aka, "no growth extremists," to admit their role in wrecking the city.

Anonymous said...

Scotty said: "Your suggestion is as well thought out as our leaders who spout silly slogans like "our environment is our economy" while ignoring the numbers."

From the same whining, complaining, angry Scotty on Riptide just prior to the last election:
"I agree with many of the things Jeff has said about the current council, and he says them in a much less hysterical way than his partner in crime on the ballot. However, the information in this post, along with his bashing of more than one non-real-estate-related Pacifica business in this forum (while always praising anything that introduces new housing) leads me to vote for the two incumbents.

I'll at least be assured of pissing off some of the zealots with each of my votes."


Posted by: Scotty | October 07, 2008 at 12:37 AM
----

So by his own admission Scotty voted for incumbent anti-growther DeJarnatt and yet he continues to complain about him. Interesting... Scotty, you have met the enemy and he is you.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps some day, maybe 100 years from now, someone will go back and reread Kathy's posts and see them as sheer genius. But today, in this day and age, can someone please tell me WTF she is talking about?

Mr. Sir said...

Our nation is experiencing the greatest recession in its history due to a global financial crises not seen since the Great Depression. California's unemployment rate is north of 12% and the state faces a $19B budget deficit. Thousands of municipalities are grappling with the largest revenue shortfalls in their existence.

And somehow Pacifica the sole municipality in which its plight has nothing to do with these systemic issues and all blame can placed squarely on the shoulders of a Magical Mystical Boogeyman, the damned no-growthers.

If only we could put in a card club in the quarry, we'd have no problems!!!

Scotty said...

Jeff, you live 2000 miles away and yet you insist on trying to create these bizarre, paranoid feuds. What's even more odd is that since you've left, more often than not, you try to create them with people that agree with you. Please, move on.

Yessiree said...

How about a nice big strip mall in the Quarry with breathtaking ocean views? Then shoppers can watch live sharks as they are trying on sharkskin suits and boots.

No Growth Extremist said...

Steve Sinai said... "It's tough for the "smart-growth pragmatists," aka, "no growth extremists," to admit their role in wrecking the city."

12 steps of no growth extremists:

1. We admitted we were powerless over our no growth extremism, that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to entrust our wills and our lives to the care of the collective wisdom and resources of those who have searched before us.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to ourselves, without reservation, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. We are ready to accept help in letting go of all our defects of character.

7. With humility and openness sought to eliminate our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through meditation to improve our spiritual awareness and discover the power to carry out that way of life.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to no growth extremists, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Anonymous said...

Scotty, I doubt very much whether Jeff would have agreed with your decision to vote for DeJarnatt! Any chance you would consider moving 2000 miles away?

And Kathy, "we have been living with financial bare bones..." - really? If you believe our runaway unfunded pensions, ridiculous City Attorney's budget (why is she an employee with a staff person anyway--she brings in consultants to do everything--why not cut out the middle man), the piggy-backing of habitat creations on top of other civic projects (case in point frog habitat associated with the Police Station which cost taxpayers between 1 and 2 million dollars extra), endless fire battalion chiefs ad nauseum (but too few entry level firefighters) are "bare bones" then you really have no business trying to "fix Pacifica".

Mr. Sir said...

Anon, the Concrete Huggers on this site would have you believe ^^ those ^^ problems only exist because the Calera Creek Freeway Project has been held up.

Steve Sinai said...

Hell, even I voted for DeJarnatt once. That was before I started paying attention.

Scotty said...

It looks like I agree with the NIMBYs for once. It sounds like we all concur that we should vote out Digre and Vreeland, since they have refused to slash the city attorney's budget and are in a large part responsible for the retail space sitting empty because of their anti-business policies.

Jeffrey W Simons said...

"Scotty said...

Jeff, you live 2000 miles away and yet you insist on trying to create these bizarre, paranoid feuds. What's even more odd is that since you've left, more often than not, you try to create them with people that agree with you. Please, move on."

Well I did move on to the 10:15 AM CST matinee showing of "Machete" this morning at the AMC Stonebriar 24 with my brother, but somehow I was one of those jerks who posts to chat boards from inside a movie theater??

So apparently ever Anonymous post that tweaks someone is blamed on me? Let's see, Sinai attributed an Anonymous post to me when I was at Niagara Falls with my wife and kids, attributed a slew of Anonymous posts to me a few days ago (but ironically enough pushed aside comments of Toddy Bray's unethical conduct as "rumor" . . . )

C'mon Scotty, that's weak even for you. Especially since you didn't vote for me. ;)

I will direct one comment to Mr Sir, something I have pointed out numerous times but apparently it didn't stick, so here it is again for the people in the cheap seats . . .

#1 - Pacifica's recession started well before the global recession. By about 3-4 years.

#2 - Pacifica was already at the bare bones staffing levels other municipalities are now facing when the recession hit.

#3 - other municipalities are facing a shortfall, but many have $15-$20 million in a reserve account. Pacifica has nothing. It had a phantom reserve that got Pete Dejarnatt elected.

#4 - other municipalities will recover. Pacifica will probably not. and not all the tax increases and pay concessions from the union in the world will fix Pacifica at this point. Walgreens and Fresh and Easy will not fix Pacifica. I admire the work Mary Ann Nihart and Steve Rhodes have done, but in the end it is a 5 year plan that will plug some holes, kick the can down the road, and ultimately not fix Pacifica.

Casting aspersions on me from 1700 miles away will not fix Pacifica.

it is very possible electing an entirely new City Council will not fix Pacifica.

Anonymous at 9:56 AM does have a point: there has been a lot of fraud and waste in our city government for the past 8 years. Interestingly, it is probably fraud and waste that wouldn't have been so glaringly obvious if the city had a sustainable economy.

I try to remain hopeful, because I truly love the city and think it has a lot to offer. But the "no growth extremists" have a lot of votes and apparently ample amounts of deflection and denial. There has been nothing "smart" about the Sustainable Development crowd, they don't even conform to the principles of sustainable development OR smart growth.

Scotty said...

Sorry, Jeff... I guess I was wrong. So many people post as "Anonymous" that it's hard to keep them all straight. Pacifica definitely misses your insight, if not your drama.

Mr. Sir said...

You admit that construction of new businesses such as "Walgreens and Fresh and Easy will not fix Pacifica" and that "there has been a lot of fraud and waste in our city government for the last 8 years."

You're making the Smart Development argument for us. Thanks!

Jeffrey W Simons said...

Scotty,

apology accepted. I'm not sure what reason I would have for being anonymous, there's really no consequences to me for anything I say, and I've never shied away from my opinions. I try to be helpful with information, and fortunately my wife and I have 3 teenagers under our roof now so there is an endless supply of drama.

Scotty said...

"We shoulda built more condos. Yeah, that's what we shoulda done."

The NIMBY crowd never ceases to amaze me. I'm not sure whether they are being deliberately obtuse, hypocritical, or just dense. Yes, we absolutely need to build more dense housing clusters if we want to be able to maintain our open spaces, create sustainable mass transit opportunities, and get people out of their cars in general. Why not do that in an abandoned quarry that has been designated for redevelopment?

Jeffrey W Simons said...

Mr. Sir, perhaps you're taking my comments out of context so allow me to clarify.

The "smart development" (Pacificans for Sustainable Development) crowd has supported a virulent no-growth policy for Pacifica that has created an enormous black hole in the local economy. . . also, due to the fraud and waste of the candidates THEY supported in 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 . . . the city is so far behind the 8 ball that merely a Walgreens and a Fresh and Easy will not bring its economy back to life.

I don't want people to get the illusion that the feel good parade of hope being danced out by the incumbents and their supporters in any way, shape, or form constitutes a plan for economic recovery. Sadly, without the 2 major redevelopment areas (Quarry and OWWTP, which the city botched by clinging to Vreeland's city hall by the sea), no other development in Pacifica will have a significant impact on or benefit from the local economy.

Anonymous said...

Scotty said...
"we should vote out Digre and Vreeland, since they ... are in a large part responsible for the retail space sitting empty because of their anti-business policies."

I assume this is being said in jest. It's hard to convey irony on the internet.

Paul Slavin said...

Mr. Clifford,

Thanks for your more than satisfactory answer to my question about Sharp Park. Would you care to comment on your apparent perception as being "anti-development"? Any particular opinions you had on the Planning Commission that could support that perception?

And could you clarify your political position (as you see it) in town. Who are your particular allies and supporters? Thanks for your consideration.

Mr. Sir said...

This is not only for the ones in the cheap seats, but the ones sitting alone in an entirely different stadium:

A) During the last 20 years, Pacifica's existing open spaces/redevelopment space have never generated any business revenue; quite simply, no businesses have existed there.

B) Pacifica finds itself confronting a budget deficit. It's fairly complicated, but the bottom line is that Pacifica has obligations requiring it to spend more than it is currently taking in.

A is not the cause of B; however, A may be a solution to B.

Extrapolating: concern over what eventually gets built in the redevelopment zones or what happens to the Calera Creek site has nothing to do with the City's current deficit. These sites may offer a way to get us out of the deficit, but they didn't put us in it.

Jeffrey W Simons said...

So . . . a lack of revenue generating development for 20 years is NOT the cause for a lack of revenue? Someone needs to go back to their Municipal Economics 101 course book and re-read section 1 . . .

Anonymous said...

Mr. Clifford:
Could you please explain to us the rationale behind your (I assume it was your idea) Monster Home ordinance? Thanks.

Mr. Sir said...

a lack of revenue generating development for 20 years is NOT the cause for a lack of revenue?

A swing and a miss!

It's all about how the City managed the money that it did have at any given moment -- which is poorly.

Imagine all our current open space having never existed; say it crumbled into the sea 20 years ago. We'd still be in the same financial mess we are right now.

Do you get it now?

Markus said...

Anon @ Sept. 2, 10:27 PM
Sorry for lumping you with the “anti-development” crowd. Too many Anons and I get a bit confused. I managed a successful business for nearly 40 years. My experience has been when something having to do with my business has been determined to be counterproductive, changes have to be made regardless of the immediate state of the economy. In some instances the changes may not yield positive results for several years. However, without the changes, the adverse problems would compound negatively to the point that any subsequent changes may be too late to have positive business saving effects.
You may be correct with your example regarding the old WWTP not having an immediate or short term effect, however doing something a couple of years ago may have given us a better chance to make a positive impact and stave possible bankruptcy.
Thanks

Scotty said...

So because someone can't balance their budget on $50K, it means that they won't be able to do so on $100K?!?!

I wouldn't even expect reasoning that illogical from a Tea Party member (Sarah Palin or Jan Brewer excluded, of course).

Jeffrey W Simons said...

Sorry Mr Sir, you still have it only half right. The city mismanaged the money it had, but it also failed to generate the sufficient funds to properly staff and maintain the city's infrastructure by failing to develop key areas of the city.

In other words, the size and needs of the city should generate a General Fund closer to $40 million as opposed to less than $30 million it did have. This budget could have been attained by capitalizing on larger, smart developments, and not the "controlled" growth of one store here, one store there, etc . . . or if the city wanted to grow its budget piecemeal, it would have to bring in 50 stores like walgreens and fresh and easy as opposed to 2.

But the city council still managed to commit waste and fraud with the little $$$ it did have.

Mr. Sir said...

Holy LOL!!! If "someone can't balance their budget," then they ought not be in charge of a municipal budget!

If my paycheck is $1000 a month, but I can't control myself and consistently spend $1500 on mortgage, groceries, gas, cable, phone, clothes, etc., I don't blame my mess on a failure to rent out a spare bedroom for cash!

Nor do I blame anyone who told me it wasn't a good idea to rent it out to that shady character down the street.

The blame is on me for consistently spending like I was earning $1500 when I wasn't!

Anonymous said...

"So because someone can't balance their budget on $50K, it means that they won't be able to do so on $100K?!?!"

Just think about it: Scotty is able to participate in this forum with just 50% of a brain. Imagine if he had 100%!?!

You just couldn't help yourself from the nasty "Tea Party/Tea-Bagger" reference, could ya Scotty? Why don't you tell this group who you really are so we'll know how to properly address your XMAS cards?

Scotty said...

There are two levers that the Pacifica council has to improve their fiscal situation: raising revenues and reducing expenses. It sounds like we agree that they've done a horrible job on both. That said, it's short-sighted and simple-minded to say that either mechanism should be ignored now that the city finances are in such horrible shape.

Scotty said...

I think it's clear who you are, anon 4:14. You've got to be the person who posts half-legible signs about "taking back the country" and "joining the tea partys [sic]" on pieces of plywood in that lot at the bottom of Fassler.

Anonymous said...

"now that the city finances are in such horrible shape"

Where have you been Scotty? The city has been broke dating back to 2003! Don't you pay attention or are you just too busy chasing after Tea Party members, Sarah Palin et al wearing your tin foil hat?

Copy and paste into your browser (if you need help, ask Sinai):
pacificawatchdogs.home.mindspring.com/PT_Broke.htm

Mr. Sir said...

I'm not against development in our "re-development" zones, but I am going to be quite particular about what goes there. A mad grab for money doesn't trump all, in my book.

Just because some of us have the good sense to possess a modicum of community self-respect and are particular about what gets built in OUR city doesn't mean we want to "turn the city into the outback" (wtf?!) or are "wrecking the city" as you Concrete Huggers like to hysterically blather on about.

Why are you living here when Paradise is just north of us in Daly City?

Scotty said...

Why are you living here when you could do the right thing by tearing down your property and donating it for frog and snake habitat?

Johnny Blaze said...

"I'm not against development in our "re-development" zones, but I am going to be quite particular about what goes there. A mad grab for money doesn't trump all, in my book."

well when Pacifica gets rolled back into the county, I'm sure you'll feel you made the right decision . . .

Mr. Sir said...

Why are you living here when you could do the right thing by tearing down your property and donating it for frog and snake habitat?

I tried! But there were a group of mouthbreathers who blocked the transfer process.

They eventually paved over my land and turned it into a parking lot for a new corner liquor store. They claimed it would balance the budget, provide for everyone's pensions, pay for a local Fox News bureau, and that I was an ecco-terrorist who "wanted to blow up Pacifica" if I didn't comply!

Now there's a freeway where my driveway once stood, the store closed up after two weeks, and it's been sitting vacant for going on 18 months!

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

The Mega-Home Ordinance was set in motion by the City Council with a request to the Planning Commission to explore the feasibility of one for Pacifica. The Planning Commission set up a sub-committee to look into Mega-Home Ordinances across the country. That Sub-Committee, made up of Commissioners Chris Rakin, Harold Cicerone, and Leo Leon, recommended that the full Planning Commission recommend to the City Council an ordinance that had a 3,000 Sq.Ft. trigger on a 5,000 Sq. ft. lot. A formula was laid out that allowed bigger lots to have a larger Sq. Ft. trigger.

It should be noted that I did not join the Planning Commission until after the Sub-Committee had been set up.

I was one of seven Commissioners who voted to send the ordinance with a 3,000 Sq.Ft. trigger forward to the City Council.

The City Council, after hearing public testimony, changed the trigger to 2,750 Sq. Ft. for a 5,000 Sq.Ft. lot, and kept the formula for larger lots. They then sent it back to the Planning Commission for recommendations about story poles.

The Planning Commission recommended against story poles and for photo simulation.

The City Council, after more Public hearings, enacted the Mega-Home Ordinance.

So as you can see, although I was a part of the process, I don't own the Ordinance. The ordinance that was passed was the ordinance the City Council wanted.

In all fairness, the ordinance does address a real problem. Large homes were being built without regard for their impact on the homes around them. Neighbors were angry that they were loosing the right to enjoy their homes, and had no say about what was happening in their own neighborhoods.

The ordinance is not a prohibition of houses over 2,750 Sq.Ft.

The 2,750 Sq.Ft. number is a trigger for notice to neighbors and review by the Planning Commission. A well-built house that takes into account the neighbors’ concerns could be much larger and still get the approval of the Planning Comminission.

Steve Sinai said...

Thomas, I am very much opposed to the Mega-Home Ordinance, especially after being present in council chambers when it was voted on and seeing how arbitrarily DeJarnatt threw out the 2800 sq. ft. number that was finally accepted. My house is 2600 sq. ft., and it's hardly a mega-home.

I do believe there was a problem with neighbors not being informed of what kinds of houses were being built on nearby lots, but to force any houses greater than 2750 or 2800 sq. ft. to be reviewed by the Planning Commission makes me think that it's a bureaucratic impediment consciously put in place by no-growth types to discourage home construction. Some of us have been around town long enough to see how the game of Planning Commission Purgatory is played.

It doesn't seem like the "smart growth pragmatists" had any problem finding ways to oppose building houses in the past, so again, I don't know why this ordinance is needed.

Maybe I'm mixing you up with Rich Campbell or someone else on the Planning Commission, but haven't you gone before City Council asking them to hurry up and implement the ordinance?

Even though this particular question may not indicate it, I do appreciate being able to ask it.

Smart Growth Pragmatist said...

Costs, costs, costs... Cutting costs is the key to the kingdom. But you growthies can't seem to see that because you are so fixated on turning Pacifica into another Sunset District, S.F. (thought I would give you a resbit from the Daly City metaphor). But the peeps in San Carlos get it: http://www.ktvu.com/news/24865732/detail.html

"The San Carlos City Council voted unanimously Thursday night to outsource police jobs, approving a five-year contract for the San Mateo County Sheriff's Department to take over police services for the city.

In an effort to mend the city's $3.5 million budget deficit for the current fiscal year, city staff projected that the agreement with the sheriff's office would save the city $2 million without sacrificing the level of police service the community hopes to maintain."


Solve the problem and quit your bitching!

Smart Growth Pragmatist said...

respite (not resbit)

Scotty said...

Man, if you think people bitch a lot now in the Trib about all the break-ins, let's see what happens when we outsource our policing over the hill.

Paul Slavin said...

Whatever Mr. Clifford's answers may be, I also appreciate him responding to our questions. Has anyone heard anything from the other candidates?

Scotty said...

I would like to hear from the other candidates as well. I refuse to re-elect Vreeland or Digre, and based upon the people supporting Leon, I doubt that I will agree with his positions. That leaves me limited choices (again).

Until I hear more from the other candidates, the fact that Mr. Clifford is willing to discuss things openly (along with the fact that he does not want to turn the golf course into a snake sanctuary) makes me inclined to give him my vote. It's a sad state that Pacifica politics makes me come to my decision mostly through the process of elimination in every election.

Steve Sinai said...

"Sorry, Jeff... I guess I was wrong."

No you weren't.

Anonymous said...

Yes it is nice to have Mr. Clifford talking to us, but Steve you are correct. Mr. Clifford came before council on several occasions to push the Mega home ordinance through. An ordinance that is unfair and does not do what they want it to do. Stupid government at its best. At least Nihart noticed it was a bad ordinance.

We are at the bottom of the barrel this election. Lots of choices, but no brains or leadership. Nice people, no malice, just no new ideas, true ability to bring people together or skills I want to vote for...leaving us what, exactly? We do not have two more years to wait. Why won't great people with ideas, communication skills, and energy run for office?

Anonymous said...

"Why won't great people with ideas, communication skills, and energy run for office?"

They did. Bill Moore and Jeffrey Simons. Where were you?

Anonymous said...

"Until I hear more from the other candidates, the fact that Mr. Clifford is willing to discuss things openly (along with the fact that he does not want to turn the golf course into a snake sanctuary) makes me inclined to give him my vote"

Well Scotty, you gave us DeJarnatt. I see no reason why you wouldn't give us another PSD preferred selection. Just do us all a favor and stop whining when our General Fund and our civil liberties get washed out to sea along with the 7.5 million gallons of "tar balls".

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

Anon
How can I separate myself from Vreeland and Degree?

I can and will answer your questions and will tell you where I stand on the issues. I can offer you my plans to fix Pacifica and let you decide if I am the same as or different from any of the other candidates on the ballot. The rest is up to you.

I am not just asking for your vote, I am trying to earn it.

“Everyone tells me you are anti-any development.”

I am sorry to tell you that you have been given bad information. I strongly approved of and voted for the only major development that came before me as a Planning Commissioner, the Harmony @ One project. I voted for the project to replace the horizon in Rockaway Beach. In fact, I have voted for at least 95% of all projects that have come before me on the commission. What should be of interest to you are the reasons I voted against certain projects. The Waterford project was a mixed-used project in name only, with 83% residential and 17% commercial. I did not want to give away what little commercial potential the City of Pacifica has. If they had been willing to increase the amount of commercial space, they would have gotten my vote. I did not vote for the project on Oddstad Way [The first house to be proposed on this paper street] because they intended to build a road with a substandard width. I felt and still feel that this creates a fire safety issue. The narrow width will become a choke point in the case of a wildfire. People will be trying to get out while fire trucks try to get in. I still remember the Oakland Hills Fires. If they had been willing to widen the road by a couple of feet, they would have gotten my vote. Neither of these projects failed to get approved because of my No vote. Before I was on the commission I fought for the inclusion of the two commercial sites that are now part of the Conna Mara project. So no, I am not anti-any development.

Because I am a General Contractor in my day job and can read a set of plans, I sometimes ask hard questions of the applicants. This is not to be mean or put barriers in their path, but to help them create the best project for Pacifica they can.

Lance
My comment was not intend as a snipe at Mr. Peebles, but as recognition of just how smart he is. It is hard to have a conversation about the quarry without mentioning one of the key players.

MW by NW said...

Anyone who can kiss Peebles' ass won't be getting my vote. He and the current quarry owners have yet to pay the property taxes - they are little more then 2 bit scam artists. Maybe that explains why he's such a hero with the developer types.

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

I agree that the property taxes should be paid.

I do not understand why so many Pacificans want to fight past battles over and over again. We are in the midst of a real crisis and pointing fingers at each other solves nothing.

We must find common ground and move forward to save this town we all love.

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

Aha, a light bulb moment. Now I see why people think the Mega-Home Ordinance is all mine. Yes, I did make at least three trips to the podium to remind the City Council that they had unfinished business. The Council had asked the Planning Commission to work on this project. The Planning Commission put in more than two years of work on this ordinance. Subcommittee meetings, public hearings and a lot of staff time went into the ordinance that was sent on to the City Council.

And then there it sat, and sat, and sat.

I am sure you all have felt the frustration I was feeling.

Our elected officials are all too often afraid to make decisions.

Sacramento politicians "take a walk" on votes while the State circles the drain.

Local politicians waste precious resources on studies and then take no action.

I was not advocating for a specific outcome. I just wanted them to do SOMETHING.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the only solution to our fiscal problems that Fix Pacificans will consider is development of the quarry and the old WWTP. But even if that happens, it won't happen for several years. In the meantime, what other policies to improve out financial situation does Fix Pacifica support?

Kathy Meeh said...

Tom, bringing the mega-home ordinance to city council was necessary because it was passed by planning, so with regard to your involvement the prevailing theme is: "don't shoot the messenger." You did what was accountable.

The 3000 square foot house size to trigger a review established by the Planning Commission, became a 2700 house/600 garage square feet ordinance at city council (as I recall).

Anon @12:04pm, Fix Pacifica is a blog, responses are individual rather than collective. Having said that, similar to prior comments by Steve Sinai and others, should incumbents be elected I would not support proposed city taxes to make-up for their continued failure to promote and support needed economic development. Been there, done that.

Kathy Meeh said...

"MW by NW" @ 9:06am your comments are hardly worth repeating, so I won't. Sounds like you're in the camp that supports city default. Hope you own a property so you can pay that city failure cost along with the rest of us.

Don't think Peoples Corporation owns property in the quarry at this time, so not sure what you're talking about in your attempted smear campaign.

Thomas Clifford for City Council said...

Hi Steve and anon. on Sept. 4 and 6 I responded to some of your questions on the end of HMB blog.

Anonymous said...

All the issues that are associated whith cites having to disincorporate, contract out services, re-due worker retirements all stems from one thing a lack of fiscal accountability. Look at the retirement system. calpers - for many years Calp-pers was operating in the black and had told the Public agencies that participate that they didnt have to pay "their portion" of the contributions into the system.

The Cities, Counties and even the State did not do the smart thing of set aside the money they would have invested into their employee's retirement for rainy days and yough times...Instead they put the funds back into the General Funds and spent it...So when the economy tanked, and stocks droped like Pee-wee hermans pants at the Porno theater, they didnt have any money set aside to pay their portion that cal-pers came back and asked them to start paying again.

Other issues are per projects by elected leaders just to make a name for themselves instead of doing whats best for the constituants.

Look at Pacifica's Failed BioDiesel plant idea....The failure of HMB to upgrade their waste water plant to be able to handle more houses and buisnesses.

Look at the State and fiscal waste that goes on their...thats all Im going to touch on that subject...

Anonymous said...

The end of Pacifica as a city will happen before the end of Half Moon Bay!!

Anonymous said...

Really, why? Is that your curse, or just another idiotic comment.

Anonymous said...

The only thing more idiotic then my idiotic post was your even more idiotic response.

Anonymous said...

You two are meant for each other. Sooo romantic.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clifford tried to be the voice of reason, in a town with zero reason. What did it get him, kicked off the planning commission.

Anonymous said...

Let's think of it as the liberation of Tom Clifford. Too honorable a guy to be associated with those shape shifters.

Anonymous said...

if having a contractor on the planning commission is a conflict of interest, so is having an architect or a realtor or a mortgage broker.

Anonymous said...

realtors in Pacifica only about 5-6 of them sell enough to make any money.

what have the realtors or samcar done for Pacifica, not a thing.

San Bruno and SSF is run by realtors that is why they are not bankrupt.

Anonymous said...

location, location, location

Anonymous said...

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Bay-Area-Citizens-sues-Plan-Bay-Area-4710383.php

Anonymous said...

bunch of sue happy hippies.

time to go after them for legal fees and expenses and bankrupt them.

Anonymous said...

1:16 If you're referring to the article link, then you're talking about the Pacific Legal Foundation which is the exact opposite of a bunch of hippies. They're a conservative, property-rights group that opposes all land use regulatory things like the Coastal Commission. Either you're making a sly joke or you don't know what you're talking about. I'll assume the former.