I decided to remove this particular article because I believe it was submitted under a false name. If Alexis Andersen cares to demonstrate she's a real person, I'll be happy to put it back up.
Your Blogmaster Steve Sinai
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
The $111,000 awarded this project was only after the illegal trenching which was done without a permit. The illegal trenching was done, according to one of the principals, in order to get the $111.000 which was the first of three installments of the $650,000 original grant.
Whom ever or whatever got that money from the State of California did so well aware of the fraudulent circumstances. However if Mr. Brown received money from WEF for his work it does not mean he was aware of or involved in any way with the events that lead up to the $111,000 heist of tax payer money from the State.
The $75,000 the city spent (according to Steve Rhodes) was for preparing the environmental addendum for the project which is something the city routinely does and is routinely reimbursed by the applicants. In this case the city ate the cost.
he project never went before the planning commission. It had only one public hearing which was in front of council. The speed with which his project proceed was due to the sunset date of the $650,000 State grant.
Lets not brand this fellow Brown because of the lack of morals of his employers or friends he thought he was helping.
My my, I believe we have a new (or so they say)semi-pro political hitman at work right here in Pacifica. That oh so familiar stink of sewage now has, as they say, undernotes of fear and what's that other one? Oh yes, greed. Not to worry, all our favorite factions will get to squabbling over the candidates and absolutely nothing will get done. It's my way or the highway--well maybe not really the highway but you know what I mean. Count on it. And, by the way, pilgrim, welcome to Pacifica. You're our kind of people.
"4 years in planning" according to a statement by Nancy Hall. The public saw the "pet" biodiesel project at the beginning of the 3rd year it reached city council. In possibly the 1st year, a concrete foundation pad was build to accommodate the biodiesel office, listed as "warehouse storage" in the city budget (probably the WWTP budget, at a possible cost of $65,000, I don't exactly recall). During the entire 4 year process Staff and other preliminary cost involved would have been paid by the city, and/or the WWTP budgets. There was a initial $135,000 advance of the project payment from the general fund.
Then, the $111,000 illegal trenching cost, and the $75,000 environmental addendum, as stated by Todd Bray. So, in total, how much did this little "pet" city council fiasco really cost? Is $500,000 a "fair" estimate?
Cronyism continues to prevail in this city. Why should it be any different on the Planning Commission, except city council guidelines require a balanced view on these commissions. That's not happening. Until city council now 3 are gone, and replaced with those who promote smart city economic development this city will continue to decay.
What every city planning commission really needs are a bunch of "environmental radicals" on their planning commission-- welcome to Pacifica, development will fail here. At a recent meeting, without BJ on that commission, it was clear that Planning Commissioner Tom Clifford (a contractor with actual building background and experience) is beginning to look like the odd-man-out.
"Lets not brand this fellow Brown because of the lack of morals of his employers or friends he thought he was helping."
why not?
Uh, because it's not fair and it's not right. A little fact checking never really got in the way of a good ol' Pacifica smear. Take a second and check things out for yourself before you jump to some hand-fed conclusions. Just so you can be sure. I mean it's important to smear the right people, right? Maybe not.
Well done Steve.
"I mean it's important to smear the right people, right?.."
Smear? Get real, but there does seems to be an assumption that new Planning Commissioner Brown's background is known. It is NOT, at least not known by me. So, who is he, and how does he fit into the biodiesel plant fiasco history?
Known: City council majority has a long, proven history of appointing anti-growth, anti-development people on the Planning Commission. Also, there has been little attempt to reform the long, drawn-out, expensive, obstructionist planning process. And that includes developing and building needed quality projects in this city. Has any other city in California wasted its Redevelopment Agency advantage the way this city has? We are about to celebrate our 25th anniversary of doing just that.
Known: The biodiesel project which skipped the Planning Commission was flaky from the first (inadequate corporate balance sheet, lack of experience, regulation dodging, phantom project in Pacifica 3 years). City council majority was fully engaged with their "friends" on this one.
Known: This city is structurally messed-up and poor as the result of the anti-growth "strangle hold".
So, rather than talk about "smear", how about YOU (Anon 2/27, 12:08am) or someone else present some basic facts about Planning Commissioner Brown. If he's out there he could present his own background information (maybe an article). Then again, through his words, actions and alliances on the Planning Commission, we will know who he is soon enough anyway.
If you really want to know, why don't you just ask him. That post was hardly complimentary. Brown has been serving the community for several years as a PB&R Commissioner. Surfer, too. Doesn't seem reclusive or secretive. It's always more fun to make it up or spin the facts to suit the situation but the guy is right there out front. Ask him what he thinks about the planning commission spot. Really glad the questionable post was removed.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the City Council has voted on who the new Planning Commissioners will be[two seat are open BJ's and Commissioner Langille's]. The vote will taking place at Monday's Feb. 28th C.C meeting.
Hi Tom, THANKS, there he is, Item 10 on the 2/28/11 City Council Agenda, (Summary Report detail), Planning Commission term appointments, need two (2): Omar Saleh, Remi Tan, Mike Brown, Celeste Langille, Connie Menefee, Sam Casillas
Langille is up for term re-appointment, she seems anti-development enough, so that should leave one (1) other appointment.
Sorry for some temporary confusion on my part about that, and for your clarification.
Whole Energy should pay back all the taxpayers' money. Maybe Mr Brown would like to lead the campaign.
After all, the city is chronically broke and Council is pushing for a huge tax increase this year.
Mr Brown apparently did the business plan to set this project up. He forgot a key ingredient: check to make sure Whole Energy had the funds to actually build the project.
You know, that's not a bad idea. Make some of the parties responsible for the bio-boondoggle reimburse the city for the money Whole Energy made off with. In fact, why doesn't the state go after Whole for the money they lifted from them!
No consequenses. The money they wasted on bio would have funded a years worth of the TOT tax they just passed. The least that should be done is that the parties involved, Mike Brown, Nancy Hall, Jim Vreeland, and Scott Holmes should be called before council to justify their smoke and mirror project and explain why they shouldn't be responsible for the loss of much needed city reserves.
BB,
I'd pay to see that. Actually, we're all paying. A showdown between the Biodiesel Gang and The Fab Five in Chambers. Weapons of choice? Smoke and Mirrors of course. And as we should know from experience, they are quite evenly matched.
10:52 ...should be called before council? As if.
a Whole Energy restitution petition.
If Mike Brown gets appointed to planning commission, we can submit a petition to PC to recover all Pacifica taxpayer $$ spent on the project and Mr. Brown's first order of business will be to sign it.
Then we get the petition calendared for the next council agenda and they can vote to get OUR $$ back.
Of course council should have had WE financials to begin with, had a contract with achieved milestones before $$ expended and a recovery clause if and when WE can't perform because WE had no money.
While you're tilting at windmills, please petition Lionel and his attorney to return their $55K boondoggle to our cash-strapped city as well.
Wow, what an old crankypants you are. You can't actually expect fiscal responsibility or financial prudence from that bunch. Why would you expect that? Look at the record. But not to worry, the smart money for Planning Commissioner is on Sam Casillas. He's green enough, smooth but not yet slick, and he knows all the verses to Kumbaya. Those sherbet colored sweaters will look great on camera, too. So lighten up. Give us a hug.
"While you're tilting at windmills, please petition Lionel and his attorney to return their $55K boondoggle to our cash-strapped city as well."
this is the first time the city attorney settled instead of running up the legal costs for the city. but those were all boondoggles too, scotty.
Congratulations to the city (due to poverty of course) for setting (losing) at $55K (very low cost), rather than running the bill into the several of millions. Only problem, the settlement is temporary and ends with the next Recology contract (2017).
I don't see who benefitted from this, other than the lawyers who got paid $55K. The city can still impose fees without requiring a vote, which I thought was the whole point of the lawsuit.
What does Lionel Emde have to say? Or has he been silenced on the outcome? I'd value his observations on this thing. The intent was never frivolous.
Lionel silenced? Is the Pope Jewish?. I'm sure he'll have a comment later.
I thought the lawsuit was a good idea, but I'm a bit disappointed with the result.
For a real disappointment check out the new and re-appointed members of the planning commission, Brown and Langille. Looks like more of the same, ie, activists making their own rules to advance their own agenda rather than following the city guidelines. There was actually a little independent thought going on in the vote and the mayor made some cryptic comment about "threats" before voting for a darkhorse but nothing was changed. Three votes run the show. The birdcall segment (ploverites are back) was priceless. Rome had Nero playing the violin while the city burned and we have birdcalls. What a joke this city is.
Thanks Anon 11:09 PM. Who voted for Brown? And, what were the other 2 votes, and who voted for them?
Pacifica Resident: "I was thinking of building..."
Pacifica Planning Commission: "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO..."
Makes me feel better about marking the "no" box on the parcel assessment. I have no interest in helping the city continue conducing business as usual.
Sleeper @ 11:20
I've blocked it out somewhat already but I think Digre, Dejarnatt, Vreeland and Nihart voted Brown to finish the 2 years remaining on BJ Nathanson's (we miss you BJ) term and Digre, Vreeland and Dejarnatt voted to reappoint Langille to another full 4 year term. I think the other names in play were Omar Saleh and Connie Menafee. Or something like that. The whole thing resembled a Three Stooges episode. With extra stooges.
It sounds like when Council passed the monster house ordinance. There was no rhyme nor reason as to the square footage number that would force a builder to go to the Planning Commission. DeJarnatt just arbitrarily threw out a number, and three of the five council members voted yes.
Yes, this is pathetica. Neither rhyme nor reason live here and you can't make this stuff up.
Post a Comment