"Planning a 10 day trip with weekend commitments at either end and looking for an oceanfront hotel/motel for the 5-7 nights in between. Not planning to rent car and realize not swimming weather. Just interested in viewing waves crashing etc and prefer small town setting close to SF that I can walk around in and access to public transit if possible.
Had thought of Best Western in Pacifica..."
Given that Pacifica has virtually non-existent public transit, and there's very little within walking distance of any Pacifica hotel, the visitor from Ottawa likely won't be staying here.
For years Sue Digre and Jim Vreeland have talked about attracting tourists like this, and it's a great example of why they've failed the city. In their archaic belief that it's EITHER the environment or the economy, Digre and Vreeland have consistently impeded the development of an effective tourism infrastructure, including transportation and shops, because even the smallest project is deemed too environmentally destructive. It may please their "No Growth" supporters, but their actions have assuredly driven more tourist dollars away from Pacifica than they've attracted.
Both candidates are running away from their records, and given the state of the city, I don't blame them. Sue's new economic development slogan is "Our History is our Economy." She apparently feels that visitors will come to Pacifica because, among other reasons, Monterrey Jack cheese was invented here. Brilliant.
Jim is simply nowhere to be found this campaign season. Knowing that he can't defend his record, he seems to be hoping that name recognition alone will be enough to get him re-elected.
Posted by Steve Sinai
22 comments:
Yeah. And they caused global warming, right?
Hey all you Fixers why not try and solve the budget problem where the budget problem lives? Why not band together to demand from the state that cities under a certain size get 24% of their property taxes back instead of 11%? In smaller communities like ours with lower property values the state should have a more liberal return policy of our property and sales tax. If our property tax return percentage was increased by just 50% to 16 1/2% you could have all the sugar plum fairy wishes you desire. Is it that math is difficult? Or are all you Fixers lazy? Join me in asking... no... DEMANDING the state redistribute property and sales taxes more equitably... or do you all just want to whine about the wrong solution forever more?
This sounds too much like Julie Lancelle's silly idea that sales tax revenues should be distributed according to city population. Tax revenues should be distributed according to which cities make an effort to increase their tax base through economic development and civic improvements. Cities like Pacifica, which discourage economic development, get what they deserve when it comes to low tax revenues.
Todd, all your proposal does is shift the problem between the state and cities. It doesn't get rid of the underlying problem, which is that spending and revenues throughout the state are out-of-whack.
I voted for the proposition that bans the state from hoarding local tax revenues, so it's not like I think taxes are being distributed fairly at the moment. I just don't think this particular proposal works.
Why Steve? What do you fear?
Your question makes no sense, Todd. That tells me you have no rational way of arguing your point.
It's an issue of fairness. Cities like Pacifica, which discourage economic development, shouldn't be leeching off cities that do work to encourage economic development.
You reap what you sow, and Pacifica ain't sowing.
Steve, there isn't any leeching involved, It is simply being able to retain more of the tax dollars we raise locally. We generate an enormous amount of revenue that we are not allowed to retain. Currently we get only 11% back from property taxes so for every thousand dollars you pay in property taxes, minus the add ons, we get only $11 back to operate our city. Minus the add ons our property taxes contribute less than $300 a year to the city's general fund.
By contrast the Measure A funds we get back in LOCAL SHARE are a percentage based on population not revenue. Incidentally we get back more money than we contribute to Measure A funds every year. That possibly could be called leeching.
Todd 11:54am, then, since that's the way it works we should be doing what every other city does, help ourselves through "smart development" to generate city tax revenue.
Remember the quarry redevelopment zone, return of something like 85 cents on the dollar? Then again, we've got to be the only city in California that actually has allowed that benefit and asset to lose money.
How about using more Measure A money to fix highway 1, rather than build "trails to almost nowhere".
What do you support to fix Pacifica, other than "nothing" and "no planning" to do more of the same (while complaining)?
Is this a new issue? No. Did city council understand this issue? Yes. Did they fix this issue over their 8 long years? No. Should they be re-elected to do more of the same? No.
Kathy, why work harder for less of what the state takes away? Your idea will never work as good or as quickly as being allowed to keep more of what we already contribute.
It's $11 for every $100, Todd.
If Pacifica wants to increase it's tax revenues, then it should increase it's tax base through economic development. It's only fair that all cities play by the same rules. Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton and Hillsborough are all smaller than Pacifica. Do you think they deserve 24% simply because they're small? Do cities like Richmond and Oakland deserve only 11% because they're bigger than Pacifica?
And it is leeching. It's a proposal that allows anti-growth cities like Pacifica to sit around and do nothing, while punishing cities that make the effort to attract business and make themselves desirable places to live.
Todd, blaming the state for the cities problem is like blaming the casino for the gambler who loses the rent money.
Or blaming the liquor store for selling the drunk booze..
It is a cop out and pure bullshit
EFBM... The state is us, prop 13 is us. If we as the voting public choose to put an initiative into law stipulating new formulas for redistributing the tax revenues we generate we can. We are not down trodden peasants. This is the United State of America and we are above all else Californians.
So Fixers, are you interested in improving our cities general fund revenues or simply whining about how powerless you are?
No one's saying we're powerless. While we're singing "Kumbaya" about us all being Californians, don't you think it would be irresponsible to our brothers and sisters who have acted responsibly to reach into their pockets because the city of Pacifica has acted irresponsibly?
If anyone is whining, it's the NIMBYs.
Todd wrote:
“Hey all you Fixers why not try and solve the budget problem where the budget problem lives? Why not band together to demand from the state that cities under a certain size get 24% of their property taxes back instead of 11%? In smaller communities like ours with lower property values the state should have a more liberal return policy of our property and sales tax. If our property tax return percentage was increased by just 50% to 16 1/2% you could have all the sugar plum fairy wishes you desire.”
Demand for more money from the state? Talk about “sugar plum fairy wishes”.
You floor me Todd. Like that’s ever gonna happen. Steve, Kathy, Scotty and some of the other commenters, pretty much summed it up. We get what we deserve. The underlying problem is with our present leadership. They spend and spend without a plan nor clue as to how to increase tax revenues. Our environment can be a big part of our economy only when there is sufficient commercial infrastructure to support visitors as well as locals needs.
We fixers are not lazy or whiners. These words are more descriptive of the NIMBYs and present “do nothing” council. The motivation driving this blog is to replace the incumbents with people who will make the kind of practical changes to allow our city to actually have our beautiful surroundings work for us. Its not a question of the economy vs. the environment. This should be a symbiotic relationship. Time for a change.
I'm sick to death of the eco-freaks in this town (of which there appear to be about 5 but they are organized and vote) complain and go against EVERY attempt at some development. We don't need dog parks before viable businesses, we don't need more trails and hills and the like. We have enough and not enough revenue. Digre and Vreeland have not fixed that. Develop the quarry for God's sake - quit whining about traffic as it's a fact of life and not as bad as over the hill (where most of us commute to/from our jobs since we don't have many in Pacifica). WE NEED NEW BLOOD AND A NEW DIRECTION. DEVELOP. Change is not only good, it is vital. Vote for Pacifica's future, vote out incumbents.
Get ready if Brown wins - he will appeal Prop. 13 and everyone's taxes will go up! Then Pacifica will have a little more money but probably a lot more foreclosures and a lot more people moving out.
Uh Lois -- I think the word you are looking for is "repeal" not appeal. And the governor has no such power. It would take a 2/3rds vote of the California electorate. Get your scare tactics/facts straight!!!!
Well, thanks Anon! But it is true that he says that everything is on the table and that he didn't like Prop 13 when it went through the first time. I hope it doesn't happen. Too many older people would not be able to stay in their homes if Prop 13 was repealed.
I do appreciate the correction and you actually did it very nicely.
Dear sweet innocent Markus, and mammie Lois, and delicate brother Steve... so sensitive, and auntie Kathy,
You have more power to change things than you give yourselves credit for. We as residents can change the redistributing laws so we are not demanding anything but rather fairly legislating how our tax dollars are spent. It may seem counter intuitive to your obsession with others you feel are the grown ups but you can be those grown ups.
Todd 6:33am "Others you feel are the grown ups"-- oh you are referring to those irresponsible city council city council incumbents. Yes, they need to be replaced. The power is the vote of 3, putting in place a city council majority which controls the destiny of this city. The NIMBY spin machine seems a bit lite this year, guess the population has been beaten-down enough to obey-- hope not, we need change to repair 8 years of city council incumbent financial and structural damage.
I'm sick to death of the eco-freaks in this town (of which there appear to be about 5 but they are organized and vote) complain and go against EVERY attempt at some development.
If a vocal voting block of 5 is all it takes to stop all this totally awesome development, what does that say about the capabilities of the Pave Pacifica concrete-lovers?
"Jim is simply nowhere to be found this campaign season. Knowing that he can't defend his record, he seems to be hoping that name recognition alone will be enough to get him re-elected".
Sadly his strategy will probably work. He's betting that a mentally distracted electorate who will vote for a "surfer haircut" and his ethically challenged gang who vote for him because "he's their liar" will prevail. I often wonder if Jackie Speier really knew how this guy operated (Carmony, Angel, Lennon, tarballs, code violater, etc.) if she would be sitting next to him in a photo op.
Mike, isn't it interesting how some people involved with secondary city leadership find its more important for them and their immediate "self interest" to "go along to get along". Never mind, these people and the people of this city pay the long term and immediate cost of their failed secondary leadership.
Primary leaders such as Vreeland and other city council members know and understand the cost, yet they fail to serve a constituency which advocates for a 3rd world city.
Meantime, Pacifica "the gateway to the coast" remains nothing but a run-down, undeveloped and ill-developed city with a large debt, structural inadequacy, and a vision that treads on myth and remains incompatible with the San Francisco metropolitan area.
Anon 8:47am, of course you know the conditioned "spin" to this community over 30 years, and the large block of people who believe the promises and nonsense, apparently including you.
Post a Comment