Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(601)
-
▼
December
(75)
- The City of Pacifica's Financing City Services Tas...
- Opinion: Reduce compensation for city employees
- Countdown to New Year 2012 - Happy New Year!
- City council meeting, Monday, January 9, 2012
- Redevelopment ruling "worst outcome"
- CA schools/safety gap funded, say goodbye to Pacif...
- More trash - Atherton, they can afford it
- San Francisco pedestrian friendly street nooks cal...
- Coroner identifies motorcyclist who died in Devil'...
- Fatal motorcycle crash prompts closure of Highway ...
- UC broadening their high achievement admissions "l...
- Ohlone history program in Santa Cruz
- Season's Greetings from SF Public Golf Alliance
- Beginning 2012 with the same 'ol national immigrat...
- Age 15, sucessfully climbed world's 7 highest moun...
- Pacifica Tribune "Best of Pacifica 2012" Contest
- Lone gray wolf headed south from northest Oregon
- No Holiday shoes for one Richmond man
- Congrats to Pacifica Net for its well-earned one s...
- Christmas Eve and Christmas Day
- Happy Holidays from outer space
- Welcome to tracking Santa
- There's a reason its called "Yahoo TV"
- Last evening for live nativity exhibit in Redwood ...
- Chris Porter does another good deed
- 12 Days of Christmas Pacifica style
- Financing the American Dream - low prices and low ...
- Winter Solstice - today, the shortest daylight of ...
- San Francisco Mayor Vetoes Anti-Golf Ordinance at ...
- SF Mayor Ed Lee vetoes Sharp Park legislation
- $7.5 million Half Moon Bay Main Street bridge repl...
- Inspiration and architect of Pacifica economy dies...
- Holidays are with us - Hanukkah begins Tuesday at ...
- Keep Sharp Park golf course and the levy
- Chamber of Commerce letters to SF Mayor regarding ...
- San Francisco Regional outlook somewhat better
- Dollar down, exports way up at busiest US Port
- Gorilla Barbeque, Pacifica: Good 'cue, great sauce
- Terra Nova High School PTO Fundraiser
- SHARP PARK VOTE
- Supervisors' Vote Becomes Final ; Mayor Lee now ha...
- Showdown over Sharp Park heats up
- Rebuilding Atherton's administrative town center -...
- Redwood City moves on conceptual development to im...
- San Pedro bridge replacement begins in 2012
- Juanita Mercado's new book about Sharp Park availa...
- Fixing America - the economy and the roll of gover...
- UN climate conference reaches a legally binding deal
- The Earth Will Explode from Global Warming Within ...
- Nurses plan strike at Mills-Peninsula hospital 12...
- First Annual Holiday Fair "HMB SOMA ARTS"
- Watchdog agency fines former Pinole councilman $11...
- Allergic to the Holidays?
- SF Supervisors Narrowly Vote to turn over Sharp Pa...
- City Council Agenda, Monday, December 12, 2011
- Happy Day for Doggies
- Global warming vs. world economic recession
- Sierra Club you stink!
- S.F. supervisors OK Sharp Park transfer to NPS
- Sharp Park vote was a good behind-the-scenes show
- Herhold: Learning how to speak Pension
- Sharp Park Golf Course update to be continued unti...
- Same genes, different behavior evolves into a diff...
- Don't fergit - Oppose Avalos Ordinance To Close Sh...
- Environmental Science class at Skyline
- Drinking water may be cloudy Monday (12/5/11) but ...
- Palmetto Avenue CEQA entanglement - a holiday stor...
- City managing a sewage system - better to fake it ...
- Patch story on Linda Mar Beach parking fee
- 70 Bay Area soldiers - last California Guard unit ...
- Oppose Avalos Ordinance To Close Sharp Park
- ...
- Woodside - "Home sweet home" without town permits
- Traffic light on demand south of devil's Slide
- One less worry - Earth's polar magnetic field flip
-
▼
December
(75)
Visitors:
35 comments:
Looks like Linda Mar Beach now costs the city $160K annually and of course produces no revenue. According to the city's math, under the paid beach parking plan projected annual total expense would be $384K and projected revenue $302K. Start-up costs would be $76K. It seems that all beach parking revenue must stay with the beach. That's probably a good idea. Hardly a cash cow for the city but at least LMB might become self-supporting instead of a drain on the city coffers. The approval is for three years. The Commission liked the idea that parking revenue would go towards protecting the beach and the snowy plover habitat with signage and additional rangers to enforce the regs. Let's hope the city gets over its last minute jitters and goes for it. An extra $160K in the general fund isn't chump change.
Could city allow a parking lot hot dog cart? Surfers sell food and bling at their events: how about an economic plan for the beach? Were's sue digre??
The vast Jimmy Vreeland trail system produces no income for the city also!!
Way to go Jimmy V. No wonder why your political career stalled in Pacifica.
Stuck in Pacifica again Jimmy V.
I could care less about snowy plovers. Now that that has been said, I am happy that pk-fees will eventually be implemented. I think this is a plus for residents and if it goes through I plan on buying a yearly pk-fee permit. I also hope the rangers will keep an eye on any violence and other abuses by locals and out-of-towners. Before beach cleanup became the popular thing to do, I was cleaning the beach with a small group of people and it was always so disappointing to see out-of-towners come in and just trash the place. And, yes, they were not from here. Good luck City Council. I hope you show some backbone on this.
my, coastal commission treats Pacifica like city council treats other applicants--badly, nickel and diming the project into red ink.
Since this proposal is Pacifica's best effort and took, what, 8 years, maybe amend the proposal so it doesn't lose money? Maybe increase day fees for visitors just enough so we break even?
That too much to ask council, stop the red ink?.
plover mighty fine eatin'
Seems like there's room in the plan to raise the fees
but that might backfire and cut visitors and thus revenue. Or encourage more rogue parking on nearby streets or commercial property. Who knows? Begin the trial and adjust as needed. As far as the fabled hot dog cart. That was actually just about ready to roll a few years ago. Made its way thru PB&R all the way to council. There it was derailed by a petition with 800 signatures initiated by a "concerned" business on Crespi. Concerned about competition. Isn't that part of business? No certification of the signatures of course. I don't think the council vote was unanimous but Vreeland definitely led the retreat and helped one business kill off another. That's what happened to the hot dog cart. Sunk by surf buddies.
The city nickled and dimed itself with these rates, not the Coastal Commission. CC would allow higher rates as seen in other paid beach parking schemes.
Wait a minute. I remember a picture of Jimmy V in a hard hat, standing next to a hot dog cart and taking credit for it.
(Or maybe it was a picture of Jimmy V in a hard hat, standing next to a little girl's lemonade stand and taking credit for it.)
Go for broke, he robbed them both. Hmm..go for broke? Now there's a city slogan we can get behind.
Several years ago during the beach restoration I was in favor of a voluntary parking sticker program that at the time about $30 annually. The thought was those that use the beach regularly would get a notice on their cars similar looking to a ticket that would explain the voluntary sticker concept and ask them to participate. It was also thought that surfers who regularly used the beach would participate voluntarily out of gratitude for the beach projects massive facilities upgrades. Unfortunately senior staff at the time had a very cynical view of this idea and were in favor of a hardware solution like a parking fee machine, things that are now fairly common. Adding hardware really over complicates the issue as we are seeing.
If staff are rethinking this issue I'd suggest the voluntary parking sticker idea that came out of committee.
Todd,
Though I think the city should go forward with this, I get where you're coming from because any fee imposed via parking machine will end up being voluntary anyway -- why pay $6 when there is ample free parking within 100 yards of the lot?
Parking will definitely be pushed out to adjacent lots and side streets.
I suppose merchants can post something to the effect of "customer parking only" over at Fresh-and-Easy and other lots, but who will enforce and how? Also, would metered parking along Crespi just be a matter of time under this scenario?
Beach parking is already a problem at the Fresh and Easy San Pedro shopping center lot. With a mandatory fee at the city lots, it will only become more of a problem, and potentially at Linda Mar Shopping Center too.
The voluntary sticker advocated by Todd would avoid this.
It also avoids the need for CCC approval because it's basically a voluntary donation and does not require changing anything at all for beach goers.
Adding hardware overly complicates things as we've seen and guarantee's nothing in return but more parking issues outside of the proposed parking fee areas.
I really don't think a voluntary parking contribution would work, but it might be worth trying for a year. At least there isn't much in the way of up-front costs to implement it.
Does the city still have those gates it bought for the beach parking lot a few years ago, before learning that the city couldn't limit access to a state beach?
Maybe they are in the warehouse next to the street lights for Palmetto. The really cool ones that shine a blue light in the fog!!
Steve, the city was ordered to remove them (gates) by the CCC
And to be fair this is not my idea, it came out of the beach improvement committee back in 2004-5
I don't think we're contradicting each other, Todd.
Huge business opportunity for a towing company. Does seem like a whole lot of trouble when per the CCC all revenue must be spent on the beach and profit making is strongly discouraged if not forbidden. I guess if paid beach parking eventually relieves the general fund of the claimed $160,000 yearly bill then we should be happy. That's a lot of money and we're going to need it. The state is hungrier than ever. Can the state lay claim to parking proceeds that exceed city's expenses? You know how they are.
Well it looked like a good idea and a way to make some money for the city but it's not. Lot of trouble for minimum reward with some costly unknowns and a needy silent partner. Golly, I predict this Council will do it by unanimous vote.
HA! Anon @ 5:10. And there is the added responsibility of accepting stewardship for the Snowy Plover area as a Condition of Approval by the CCC staff. That in and of itself should be enough to chase off council but if staff recommend approval I'm sure council will follow staff off that cliff too.
Pacifica has no business being a steward or trustee for a federal and state listed species.
As of this afternoon the CCC has now postponed their vote on this item which was to be heard tomorrow 12/7. Apparently this is at the city's request while they take a couple months to think over the conditions for approval added by the CCC.
Todd, I can already see that plover corral on the beach. Delay the vote but I'm still betting council will go for this lemon of a deal rather than risk looking anti-revenue to some and anti-plover to the rest. And this will all be happening in an election year. Shazaam!
How long does that beach mngmt agreement with the state run? 2015? Seems it was 1990 for 25 years. Just wondering.
so give linda mar beach back to the state. Let Calif manage & pay for it. Certainly less trash!
Well duh and hello. That agreement ends early 2016. You better believe at some point somebody is going to have to protect the plover habitat or get sued by various enviros. We can tell from the CCC documents that this is no cash cow for this city. Probably won't even break even for years. Also a major admin headache to manage. Why not let the state do all that and save our $160,000 per year in current beach maintenance. It's not like the state is going to roll up and move that beach if they are footing the bill. People will still visit and maybe spend a few bucks and we won't have to pay for any of it. Give the thing back to them because the days when Pacifica had an extra $160,000 a year to throw at the beach are gone and will never return.
If all it's going to do is cost money and this town can't make any money off it then give it back to the state. Doubt we'll notice the difference other than saving $160,000 yearly And if this town has taken on any other such obligations it's time to cut them loose. What about the pier? The state says we can't make a dime off of it and most users aren't from here. How much does that cost yearly in maintenance, cleaning, patrols, etc? Lots of examples of things we can't afford anymore-if we ever could.
Where'd that money come from? Guess.
People have been critical of the council for not doing anything about charging for parking at Linda Mar. Now that it could actually happen, people are saying it's a lemon of a deal, it won't break even, etc. What's up with that?
Just another case of "People" lacking critical facts. Now that we have them it's pretty clear that this is not a simple case of slap down some meters and collect buckets of cash. Not at all. The CCC wants the beach and the plovers protected and they'd love for us to do that.
Bravo to council for asking the CCC vote be postponed. Bottom line, if all we can hope to do is offset our current yearly expense of $160,000-- because all revenue stays at the beach, then why not avoid the crushing mgmt and compliance burdens and not spend the $160,000 in the first place? People will enjoy the beach just as much regardless of who is stuck with the upkeep,enviro lawsuits, species and habitat protections,etc.
Yeah people criticize council a lot. That's the way it should be. Public scrutiny is part of the deal. Most folks are fair once they know the facts. The rest you can't worry about. My beef is when council rolls over and protects themselves rather than the public trust because it's easier and comfy.
that agreement betw city and state for LMB ends 2015
all monies collected are used only for beach expenses and beach development
Majority of coastal towns charge for beach parking and are able to monitor shopping center parking and residence parking. This will create more jobs.It will not be a problem. Every new system has bugs that need to be worked out in the beginning, until every one is used to the new rules. This may make real estate more valuable.
Many if not most of the beaches with paid parking are state run. City staff better do their homework on this one. It's not the goldmine people expected, it's quicksand. And that old Pacifica standby of doing nothing will probably get us sued for not protecting the plovers. Let the state handle it and save the $160K we spend now. The beach will still be there.
Anon741, how's paid beach parking and all the problems that go with it going to make real estate more valuable? A free, open beach with no overflow parking clogging nearby streets and shopping centers would seem to be the optimum situation for real estate. Wouldn't it?
Post a Comment