Text and picture from online Pacifica Tribune Questions (Part 2), 10/6/10.
1. What is your background, training and experience that qualifies you to manage the affairs of a city of 40,000 people. Please include your occupation and principle sources of income. First, I think it's important to note that I am not a politician. Other than an election in high school, this is the only political campaign I have ever run. Some may find my being so new to the party difficult. I feel I am exactly what Pacifica needs. I have no preconceived notions over what our government should do, I only have ideas over what our government should do. I am not jaded, nor am I aligned with any one group. In fact, I purposefully withdrew myself from the endorsement process as I did not want to be beholden to anyone or any group's vision. The only opinions I want to endorse are of the people of Pacifica. As an attorney, I have experience in reading, interpreting and applying laws. I understand the legal consequences of actions the board has taken in the past. I have developed strategies for keeping clients out of lawsuits, which it seems this city could use. Finally, I have experience in mediating disputes to successful resolution and negotiating contracts. I know how to read a contract to insure it protects the interests of Pacifica. I am trained in conflict resolution. I believe what we need on this council are people who can bring different opinions to the table and still make decisions. Finally, I understand the urgency of our citizens who are out of work to become re-employed. I understand their sense of frustration with the lack of responsiveness of our government to this national crisis. The government may have declared the recession over, but that is news to the nearly 10% of Pacificans still struggling to find work. My goals are to bring jobs to Pacifica, while keeping interim support services going.
2. What is your position on the future use of the quarry, including the possibility of residential units. I understand No on L was not just about development in the quarry, but also about how the development was being handled by the developer and our council. People were concerned about the lack of accountability in the contract. The vote had nothing to do with finalizing the proposed plans, only to give the developer permission to provide housing units with the commercial development he proposed. Nothing prevented the developer from tacking the approval and completely changing everything he proposed to something a majority of the voters did not want. So, do I think a proposed development could work in the quarry? Yes, I do. I don't know that it's the best location given the physical limitations of the space. I also don't know that it's the right space to develop a business center for Pacifica. First, we have the traffic limitations. Second, we have such a beautiful area — what could be so important as to take that away — especially when we have other, more viable areas? Still, if it were deemed the best location for developing a business center, I would proceed with great care. Pacifica cares about the environment. I would not want to work with any contractor or developer that did not have a good track record for environmentally friendly policies. Any developer/contractor would need to provide proof of their record on the environment. What have they done lately? Second, it would be grossly important to obtain public opinion — good and bad. We want Pacifica to use any development we are going to build. What do Pacificans want in a business center? What don't they want? Obviously, we will never please everyone — but, we can strive to create a business center that meets everyone in the middle. The key is balance. We must balance the needs of our community versus the wishes of our community. We cannot allow one set of desires to overtake the priorities of our community — which are, as I see them, lessening our impact on the environment and creating a long-term sustainable economy. Finally, and this might frustrate some of you, but I will not make a decision on any proposed development until I am satisfied that I have the facts in front of me. Pacifica has had enough rash decisions that have cost us dearly. We have never seen the quarry developed despite throwing lots of money towards it. We have never seen the old waste water treatment plant renovated despite throwing lots of money towards it and despite the fact that it is a health hazard. I am not against development and I am for the environment. I think we can, and must, balance those two needs in our community.
3. For more than 20 years, Pacifica has debated a Highway 1 congestion solution. Where do you stand on the proposed expansion plan Caltrans and the Transportation Authority has presented? Anyone who has tried to commute into or out of Pacifica during commute times knows we have a congestion problem. Like it or not, to go from one end of town to the other, we have only one way out. Imagine what would happen if a major accident, spill, or other foreseeable problem happened on our highway. Imagine what the town would do if we needed to evacuate in an emergency? How would emergency vehicles get to where they were needed if everyone was headed on Highway 1? In light of what happened in San Bruno, I don't see how we cannot address this problem. The pros for a fix to the Highway 1 congestion, to me, are highly beneficial to Pacifica. First, we provide relief to the morning and afternoon commute. We also increase the ability of people outside Pacifica to come in to town for things like Fogfest. If we are going to get serious about developing a business district, then we need to make it accessible to outside funds. Right now, our town is not accessible or perceived as accessible on days of increased traffic. We cannot even begin to analyze all of the cons to see if they can be ameliorated without an EIR. Pacifica is concerned with the environment and with cost. Sometimes, we will have to spend money to save money. If we want to increase business in town, we have to provide a way for it to get here. While it may seem hard to spend money now, we need to make smart decisions about spending that will support our future. To me, anything that supports our business' ability to increase their income is a win. As for the environment, an EIR is needed before we can understand if this project can go forward without serious impact to the environment.
4. What is your position on reuse of the old wastewater treatment plant and/or developing West Sharp Park as a potential downtown area? I am generally in favor of any business development that is intelligently planned. The planned proposal on Palmetto is beautiful, tasteful and classy and really designed to be a community gathering spot. The wastewater treatment plant would be a good anchor, and could serve as a concert venue or other entertainment provider which our town could really use. It has a lot of potential for other revenue generating events, such as festivals, parades, and performance areas. My main concern is that we do not create a business center that destroys local fixtures which have thrived in Pacifica — such as Florey's books, Mazetti's bakery, and Sav More meats. I believe we can do this by working carefully with the developer to ensure fresh businesses are brought in that would not destroy the small businesses in our town. Business development is key. A business district is key. Currently, we have business islands, without much reason for a visitor to Pacifica to visit other areas in our town. They may come here to go to Mazettis, for example, but then get back on the freeway and head back out of town. By providing a centralized location, we increase sustained traffic which captures more revenue from outside sources, supporting our business and increasing our tax base. Remember, the more income our citizens make, the more income Pacifica will have. A business district will help put Pacificans back to work.
5. What are your thoughts regarding the council's proposed $6 million in new taxes for 2011-12, including the proposed increase in TOT hotel tax that will appear on November's ballot. Will you actively campaign for or against these tax proposals and why? I do not support the TOT tax. The plan, in my opinion, is short-sighted. I believe government should earn the tax dollars it receives from its citizens. Taxes should be based on a service or benefit provided to the citizens, at large. Taxes for schools, utilities, public safety all have a correlation to a service that can be used by the person being taxed. Pacifica has not earned the right to tax the hotel owners more. I understand Pacifica has a budget deficit. All the TOT tax does, besides generate revenue, is ask the hotel owners to unfairly shoulder the burden of Pacifica's problems. It offers nothing in return. If Pacifica wants to tax hotel owners more, they need to provide support to the hotel owners to increase their business. They need to make Pacifica a more attractive tourist destination. One of the reasons Pacifica hotel owners are successful in competing against San Francisco is because their rates are lower. With an increased TOT, hotel owners lose their edge over Pacifica — running them out of business. While the TOT tax may bring in short-term revenue, in the long-term, it will cause more problems. TOT will make our hotels less competitive, which will decrease business. Ultimately, the principle behind TOT is based on continued levels of business. If Pacifica cannot compete against San Francisco or SFO hotels, tax revenue will actually drop. I am less concerned about the other proposed changes. I believe changes are necessary, unfortunately. Our town has been laid off, too. We used to receive more federal and state funding which helped fund programs we are required to have, such as our school system. But funding has dwindled, if not been removed. We still have the programs, we still have obligations. We just don't have the money. My last resort would be to lay anyone off. Knowing what that feels like, I would have to believe, in good conscience, that it was the best solution to the problems presented. Asking people to reduce hours, job share or to consolidate positions where job duties overlap would be preferable. Keeping the unemployment rate down in Pacifica is key to me.
6. How would you solve the city's longtime budget structural deficit? Pacifica needs to look hard at the decisions they have made regarding their budget and correct deficiencies so that we do not continue in the same pattern of spending without limitations. With less income, we need to have less out going. First, it seems we've spent an awful lot of money unnecessarily. There have been several questionable personnel decisions which should not reoccur. While I do believe a city has the right to fire and hire at-will, firings should be done in a fair and reasonable manner. Firings should not be conducted for political vendettas or personal issues. I won't argue the merits of these firings as I don't know what the council was told in the situation, but I will argue that they should have been handled differently. As an attorney, I understand sometimes tough decisions have to be made regarding who can continue working for an entity, but I will say that anytime someone is fired under the allegations of serious wrongdoing, we'd better have strong evidence to support that allegation. In my experience, I can tell you that 95% of lawsuits begin with the mistreatment of one individual. We have direct evidence of that here; there have been several lawsuits in the past several years directed at the personnel decisions of our city leaders. These lawsuits cost our city large sums of money that could have been avoided with better thought out personnel decisions. Second, we spend money on things only to delay them or never see them through to fruition. For example, we spent money to contemplate the building of a biofuel station which has never been built. We've spent money on EIRs for projects not even near EIR stage. Perhaps more careful analysis of an issue is necessary before we start writing checks. We cannot spend now, think later. Third, we need to look at areas where we can trim budgets. Renegotiate labor contracts, look at our outsourced services and determine if they can be done for cheaper, and, as a last resort, make the painful decision to eliminate some positions. The more fat we can trim, even if it is very bare to the bones now, the better. Finally, we need to look at ways of drawing in revenue to our city. I know this may impact some of our citizens, but I believe it is time we looked to collecting nominal parking fees at our beaches and recreation areas. Parking fees could be used to create a job corps to help beautify our city and to pay for services we currently outsource, taking pressure off our budget. I would also look to long term plans to bring in revenue by developing a business center which would be attractive to outside funds. Finally, I'd like to see the development of a spring festival as a counterpart to Fogfest. For me, I want to know that every dollar I spend has value in return. I want to know that Pacifica is being benefited, and not just my goals. Before I vote to spend a dime for Pacifica, I want to know all the facts behind a project, whether there is public approval, whether it will generate income for our city, or whether we have a firm plan in place. We cannot continue to waste money by throwing it against a wall to see what sticks.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
1 comment:
Good Stuff!
Post a Comment