Pacifica Tribune My Turn article, 11/23/11, page 7A, "Re: point of sale clause" by Tod Schlesinger.
Enlightened Pacifica property owner |
Follow me so far? It’s a slam dunk, you’re not at fault and his insurance will pay for it. Except . . . he negotiates a settlement with YOUR insurance company without your knowledge or consent that YOU will pay to fix YOUR car. And he only informs you of you’re right to protest the settlement on a late Friday afternoon when the settlement is due to be signed on Monday. Does that sound fair?
Of course not, and that is exactly what the City Council of Pacifica just did to the homeowners of Pacifica. After allowing 7.5 million gallons of sewage to spill out of the Calera Creek Waste Treatment Plant in 2008 (mostly due to their neglect and mismanagement of the plant), the City Council has negotiated a settlement to pay for their fines by passing a point of sale clause in all future home sales in Pacifica which says homeowners must now inspect and upgrade THEIR sewer laterals.
Here’s the facts: in late January 2008 the City of Pacifica allowed 7.5 million gallons of mostly untreated sewage to spill out of the plant and into the ocean. Weeks later, at least 2 council members (Vreeland and Dejarnatt) claimed the spill and clean up were due to “tar balls”. It was only after a private citizen dug a little and discovered it was a massive sewer spill that the City Council finally admitted it to the public.
What caused the spill? According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the plant was overloaded with I and I (inflow and infiltration) from a heavy rainfall. But the sewer plant has 5 “Sequence Batch Reactors” to process this heavy flow. However, one of those SBRs had been down for repairs since October 2007, and was not scheduled to be repaired until March 2008 . . . AFTER the heaviest rainfalls!! The plant was only functioning at 80% capacity as it headed into the wet season.
The same report also said the city should have been spending about $1 million per year on sewer main and sewer line upgrades, but instead was spending about $100,000. Where did all that money go? Money the homeowners and businesses paid as part of their ever increasing sewer fees? Why, the city council and their no growth supporters decided it was better to discourage new housing and businesses in Pacifica, and they transferred that money from the sewer fund to the general fund to plug gaping financial holes in the city’s budget. This was a practice the Big Horn decision later ruled was illegal.
So after the city received a record fine by the RWQCB and was sued by the environmental organization Our Children’s Earth, they negotiated a settlement by which the problem would be solved . . . or rather paid for by a point of sale ordinance they snuck on to a recent agenda at the last minute. The ordinance passed unanimously 4-0 (Councilman Vreeland was unable to attend the meeting for unknown reasons). Only 6 people spoke to oppose this ordinance, including members of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. Too little too late, in my book. They had the opportunity to endorse 2 Realtors for City Council in 2008 and balked.
Bottom line is that millions of dollars will be paid by the homeowners over the next 20 years to pay for a mistake that falls squarely on the shoulders of the longest termed council members.
Think of my story, and replace the car with a giant truck barreling down Manor Drive, or Fassler. And there you homeowners are at the bottom of the hill completely unaware you’re about to get crushed."
Submitted by Jim Alex
16 comments:
Don't forget the city is trying to peddle 50 million in bonds to fix the sewer plant!
This is Tod's Tribune My Turn article at his best, thorough a lookback at the reasons we will paying $50 million to update the sewer system.
Referring to 2002-08 city council, "they transferred that money (approximately $700,000+ annually) until 2006 "from the sewer fund to the general fund to plug gaping financial holes in the city’s budget." The California Big Horn decision made such city practices illegal (many other weak cities were doing something similar).
And as Tod further mentions the negative impact long-term elected city council issue is that of unsustainable "no growth". 2002-2010 city council's mostly undeclared anti-development plan promoted more volunteerism, and reduction of city land through more "open space".
Thus, the unnecessary recession in Pacifica began in 2002, with 4 "no growth" city council members guiding this city down a trail, off a cliff. Yet, the stage for control of city council was set over 30 years, and in the late 1990's with the election of 2 "no growth" city council members. 3 city council members are a majority, oops!
The spin: "We saved Mori Point" (all 110 acres). And, so far, they also "saved" the quarry (zoned commercial, retail, mixed-use, all 88 acres). Cattle Hill and a whole bunch of other private properties have also been "saved" through persuasive influence (gift and take the tax break). The view from some of us who would prefer a city with a better, more balanced infrastructure: For today and our future, thanks for more taxes/fees, higher risk, fewer civic benefits (in total less than nothing)!
Don't forget the climate change committee's plan to force home sellers to spend 3/4 of 1% of the selling price on energy audits. That's $4500 for a house sold at $600K.
This enviro-nut-job grip on this city is surreal. Thank you John Curtis, Nancy Hall, Pete Shoemaker, Peter Loeb, Todd Bray, Sue Digre, Jim Vreeland, Pete DeJarnatt, Ron Maykel, and the rest of the hippies who have destroyed our city.
When is enough, enough?
The sewaer system needs fixing, of that there's no doubt. The city neglected the decrepit pipes leading from homes to the sewage treatment plant, and that's the problem. Because the pipes are old and full of holes, rainwater gets in and overwhelms the system, causing overflows of untreated water.
But what's the real problem? Is it this neglect, or is it the public's trust of local leaders? Seems to me that the $50 million plan on the table needs a lot more public exposure, real soon, as in posting on the city's Web site.
voters need to rise up and vote Pete out in 2012. That will be a huge start!
Save your breath. Pete's not running for re-election in 2012. He's done.
Thank you Kathy Meeh, Steve Sinai, Mike Bell, Jim Wagner, Jim Alex, Tod Schlesinger and the rest of the hippie-haters. You have done so much to make Pacifica a better place. Hahahahahahaha. Oh, that was funny.
I see there's a reason you're anonymous, but we have helped change the conversation and level transparency in the city. City council will improve when "no growthers" no longer rule, vote them out.
looks like the council shill is back at posting anonymous!
I'll believe Pete is not running when he says it publicly an not before.
Believe and "Sneaky" Pete don't belong in the same conversation!
Until he announces it publicly I wouldn't make any assumptions on his plans. He's said he's done many times before and then changed his mind and run for re-election. Many times. Noise about quitting while in office, too, and yet there he is. Politicians are a different breed and they all love the limelight.
The written Schlesinger is far superior to the spoken one. Clear, concise, perceptive and without that "attack dog" nonsense. He makes sense. Shows you what a good editor can do.
"we have helped change the conversation " You're certainly having a conversation amongst a few who post here. Whether you've changed the conversation in the wider community is doubtful.
"...conversation amongst a few who post.."
177,704 blog hits over 2 years, or 88,852 per year, or 7,404 per month, (see visitor count bottom of left column)-- a consistent message "Fix Pacifica".
Good idea to keep having this community conversation. Clear enough Anonymous of no name (1012)?
does anyone know the cost of this sewer lateral reconstruction, per home? A three bedroom rancher in linda mar wants to sell, after jan 1, 2012. Who and where would they go to for the reconstruction? I know they need to get the permits, what is that cost? Has the city posted costs? This is scary.
Post a Comment