Measure P - Jefferson Union High School District tax to maintain quality. "$96 parcel tax for 4 years to maintain and improve academic programs including reading, writing, science and math, funding computer technology/vocational training, and retain highly qualified teachers". A 2/3 majority approve, 4 years duration.
Measure R - Pacifica hotel Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase from 10% to 12%. City councilmembers support this tax. Business leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, and 2 former mayors oppose this tax. A simple majority of voters approve or reject.
Measure U - San Mateo Board of Supervisors Charter amendment to fill vacancies. Appointment or call a special election (may be mail-in) within 30 days of a supervisor vacancy. A simple majority of voters approve or reject.
Measure V - Term Limits for Pacifica City Council. Council members may serve 2 terms (4 years each, 8 years total). The exception: If a council member has served a partial term of 2 years or more, that term is considered a full therm. The measure is prospective, and therefore does not affect the existing terms of current city council members. Argument for "getting the job done."
Still confused? Be sure to view the additional references provided: full text, impartial analysis, argument for and against, rebuttals, use of funding, those who support and oppose, and any other linked information.
Note: The ballot Measures above are referenced from Ballotpedia, which includes all 11/2/2010 ballot measures for San Mateo County. Please be advised I am treasurer for Friends of Good Government (FOGG), the supporting PAC organization for Measure V.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
36 comments:
Vote No on Measure M
Vote No on Measure P
Vote No on Measure R
Vote Yes on Measure U
Vote Yes on Measure V
Yes on V. It really makes sense. Why? We had the same old same people running and getting on the council. TERM lIMITS WOULD GIVE THEM A STOP.
Let's face it. By the second term they do not do nothing. All they do is to listen to their friends and FORGET about how they got there to begin with.
V is good for Pacifica. We need it really desperately.
How about do what Mary Ann Nihart did and Len Stone is currently doing -- campaign like hell. That is the way to stamp out incumbency. Even if V passes we could still have up to 8 more years of the "same old people."
And effective council members like Nihart will only be able to serve for a maximum of 8 years. Where is the sense in that?
Cutting off the nose to spite the face?
NO ON V!!! I want choices not such a stupid restraint.
You really sound like Mary Ann Nihart. Sorry being in the council is not for you to make a career. Sorry I am voting YES.I strongly believe Pacifica needs a change of government.
But V won't change government. I agree with Anon 9:57. V makes no sense. A vote for V is a vote for shooting yourself in the foot.
Pacifica is the "poster child" need for Measure V, term limits. Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Lancelle in prior years, and Digre this year would all be gone. Understanding the issues and the background, re-read two powerful letters-to-the-editor posted on this blog today.
1. Connie Menefee describes city council "empty, unfulfilled incumbent promises, misdirected excuses, and repeated failed and misguided leadership".
2. Bill Moore describes absent and not accountable "tax and spend" leadership. And, the consequences: "Without new ideas we are going to perish as a city due to our lack of revenue and the real prospect of bankruptcy."
Over 8 years plus we have been presented with a harmonious political illusion that "everything is okay" while the city has been deteriorating. Anon, 10:57pm without Measure V we have "shoot ourselves in the foot" by not having term limits. Will this city now survive?
Hey Stechbart, I mean Anon @ October 20, 2010 10:43 PM,
No I may sound like Mary Ann Nihart but I am not her. Thanks for the compliment, though.
Yours,
Anon @ October 20, 2010 9:57 PM
PS -- to the rest of ya: if you control freaks want to limit your choices then fine don't vote. But don't try to limit mine!! NO ON V!!!
And tell me why Pacifica Arms has put a bunch of money (something like $10,000) in the Yes on V coffers? What the heck is that about?
I think we know what the money is about don't we now? Are they behind any candidates?
"I think we know what the money is about don't we now?"
No we don't. Let's hear your conspiracy theory.
We already have term limits, it's called voting people out. If someone does a good job I don't want them to have to leave after 8 years. If they do a bad job, I don't vote for them. MY choice. Term limits create a lame duck for 4 years. Prop. V is insulting to voters. The Yes on V people are angry they don't get their way. Too bad. NO on V!
Anonymous, I'm canceling your vote. You do sound like at "spoiled child". Especially in Pacifica (with the power exerted by those in office) Term Limits is a good thing.
I'm canceling your cancellation. It seems that most of the people for term limits are the same ones who don't like the current council. I don't like the current council, but I think Prop V is bunk. There's already a democratic process in place to remove the current council.
I agree with Scotty on term limits. Term limits is a terrible, overbearing thing. It takes away my potential votes just because the sourpusses behind V have a vendetta aimed at getting rid of the current council.
If you do not like the current officeholders then vote them out. Consider running yourself and campaign like Len Stone or Leo Leon. They are both getting their names out there. I think we may end with only one incumbent in addition to those gentlemen.
oh if only you knew what was really behind the term limits campaign . . . this was not some normal sourpuss vendetta . . .
Oh, please explain. I have heard there is something about someone not getting his/her way on a committee.
The Koch Brothers are behind this.
its about "you" people
It is the gun shop owners who have contributed $10,000 to the Yes on V campaign -- not the Koch Brothers (Pacifica is too small potatoes for them.) The weird thing is that there is no indication that the Yes on V campaign has spent much if any of this money. Very strange. Still waiting for an explanation.
The "Yes on V" crew can't articulate an adequate reason for why we need to amend the City Charter that can't be countered by a simple "Just vote the lazy incumbants out!"
Let's be honest and admit what's going on; the "Yes on V" cabal are unable to get their own candidates elected, so they've cooked up a legislative "end run" to restrict your right to vote in order to achieve their dubious goal.
there is no "Yes on V" cabal. that is the biggest crock i have ever read on this website
Hit a nerve, did I?
The biggest crock is the "Yes on V" cabal's thinking that Pacificans are idiots who blindly vote for the incumbants in unthinking lockstep.
Of course, this doesn't happen and it's obvious we don't need "protection from ourselves" as we've been quite capable of voting out incumbants, so the conclusion any thinking person can draw is that the "Yes on V" crybabies are unable to get their "pave over paradise" crew elected and so they've resorted to this stunt.
Term limits, arguments for and against.
Term Limits is Plan B. It seems impossible to get rid of "some people" on Pacifica city council. Lancelle 10 years (gracious enough to quit), Digre (8 years), Vreeland 12 years, DeJarnatt (currently 14 years, going on 16 years).
Of course, this city council "cabal" was able to almost destroy this city in their 8 years together. Really buy the argument that had they stayed city council only 8 years we would NOT have been better off? Want to see them complete the job, Scotty?
Term Limits is our hope for the future and represents "never again".
"Painter" 7:12pm, the "Yes on V" crew did articulate the reason for term limits in the ballot measure, Measure V. Note: there is an "impartial analysis", but there was no official arguments against.
Then there is "it depends": "Bloomberg Zig Zagging on his Term Limits" from New York magazine.
"Painter 7:36pm, guess I agree with you on one point, some of us would have preferred city council recall rather than an orderly term limits measure. Cause: blatant failure to provide the people of this city a needed balanced city economy.
"Pave over paradise" uh, you mean unproductive open space and the ocean? Weak.
so name the 2 people who were spearheading the Yes on V campaign. are you calling them "crybabies unable to get their "pave over paradise" crew elected and so they've resorted to this stunt" . . . who have these 2 people supported before for City Council?
and how is putting something to a vote "undemocratic"?
While I wouldn't (and didn't) call it "undemocratic," we should all be very, very wary of legislation which weakens our voice at the ballot box.
I've had people approach me because they think Measure V is unconstitutional. Let me explain why I believe its not:
The constitution designates the rights and responsibilities of the federal government, only. Any right not given to the federal government is reserved to the states. Among the rights/obligations reserved to the states was the right to determine how their elections would be conducted and the qualifications required for the state/local offices.
We already have limits placed on the qualifications for office. Some have been deemed unconstitutional because they infringe upon a protected class status (such as gender or race), but some have survived. For example, nobody questions the fact that we have an age requirement for some positions - we want our senators to have some life experience and not be kindergarteners (even if some act like it!).
Measure V asks the voting public for permission to further limit the qualifications for the position of city council. It asks the voters to allow the qualification that someone not be allowed to run if they have already served two terms. The local government has the right to determine its qualifications.
That being said, I am not going to vote for it. While I believe term limits can encourage more participation in government (and prevent strong factions from holding a monopoly on the government offices), I don't think we have a large enough population to have a lifetime ban after two terms. Perhaps a ban for three elections after two terms or some cooling off period would work. I just think there is a middle ground between the two think tanks that provides a better compromise which meets more of the concerns of our citizens.
I'm voting for Flemish Painter. Please run. V is for vendetta and it's foolish. Don't mess with my right to vote for anybody anytime and everytime if I so choose.
Anon 10:57am, that's not exactly the way its worked in Pacifica. Once elected, city council (supported by their "friends") got their "our environment is our economy"non sequitur agenda going along with periodic assurances to the public that "the city has never been in better shape" or the alternative "we can do nothing". That's right they have done "nothing" to bring about a balanced city economy, and removing them has been more like removing Kudzu vine.
why is it the people have the right to vote for any candidate they chose but not the right to vote for term limits???
Nobody's saying that people don't have the right to vote for term limits. We have the right to vote for any measure that we can get on the ballot, no matter how foolish it is, like Measure V.
Measure V may be "foolish" to you, whereas to me its "efficient". There is also a long history supporting Term Limits for elected citizen officials in government in this country and others-- the rational to bring-in "fresh ideas" and allow others their turn is sound.
If you're a Tea Party Republican, you are so busted, except for that Anon 1:33pm cover.
Measure V? Americans have died for our right to vote. Don't screw with it and don't babble some drool about you can't get "them" out any other way or connect your whacky dots to support such idiocy. If candidates don't capture the voter's trust and imagination then they lose. It's that simple. Democracy ain't perfect but people are still dying to get here and dying to defend it. Step off!
You don't understand, all incumbents have access to an exclusive book of magick that challengers aren't allowed to see!
Vreeland cast a spell and forced me to vote for him again and again!
Anon 2:39PM, Americans have died to defend our country, for various reasons, including the vote (your drift), which has zero to do with Term limits as it exists through-out elected office in this country at national, state, county, district and city level.
On the other hand, there may be other persuasive reasons such as those described by Anon 3:07PM. And, that's the reason I'm staying Anon on this one too.
"Vreeland cast a spell and forced me to vote for him again and again!"
so maybe this time harry potter can break that spell and you won't vote for 4-term lame duck vreeland!
everyone here realizes term limits cannot be retroactively directed at this current city council, right? so the hysteria about this being the revenge campaign of the pro-development crowd is complete B.S., right?
Anon, 3:49pm, no, you vote for Vreeland, he's you're kind of guy.
We hope the majority of the city population will "get it" and vote out anti-economy city council members who have put this city in a financial ditch.
At the same time we hope that pro-business, pro-economy challenger candidate will be able to save this city and its parcel owners from economic ruin. The only amusing thing about that would be the county taking back some unproductive open space.
Term Limits website. Term limits is a good idea for Pacifica. Your guy Vreeland would have been gone 4 years ago, our chances of getting a balanced city economy rather than the "B.S." would have gone way up.
Post a Comment