Wednesday, March 7, 2012

THE PERFECT STORM

   
 The term "perfect storm" refers to the unlikely confluence of a number of separate weather systems uniting to form a maelstrom of catastrophic proportions. Such an analogy could well describe the financial situation Pacifica finds itself in today; the line graph of our budget reserves looks alarmingly like a barometer in free fall.
 
    The first front that hit us was the disastrous global recession that followed the collapse of the housing market, triggering business and bank failures, the foreclosure epidemic, and wide scale job losses. Equity, built up over years, vanished overnight. Government revenues dried up, and cities struggled to support programs and meet payrolls negotiated in fatter times.
 
    These conditions were, of course, widespread, but two other elements of our "perfect storm" seem to be unique to Pacifica. One is the sharp philosophical and political differences between the pro-growth, business-friendly faction, on the one hand, and the anti-development, environmental faction on the other. This antagonism, often simmering below the surface, occasionally exploding into view, has historically divided our community. Sometimes portrayed as "Chamber of Commerce vs. Planning Commission", the battles have mostly gone to the environmentalists (with the thankful exception of Sharp Park). But their victories have left us with an abundance of unproductive open land and a serious shortage of sustainable revenue. This was survivable for quite a while with regular influxes of State and Federal cash, but those days are gone. We're on our own. With little busuness and no development to bring in the money, our only recourse has been the distasteful choice between raising taxes and cutting services. The stark options detailed by the Financing City Services Task Force leaves no doubt that we have arrived at a critical juncture.
 
    The third element, to complete the analogy, is the apparent inability of our City Council to effectively, collectively, deal with the problem. Splintered along the ideological lines noted above, the Council has been further handicapped over the last year or so by the numerous absences of Jim Vreeland. Discussions and decisions have been avoided, or delayed, or relegated to committees. The Council, at times, has seemed overwhelmed. Mary Ann Nihart and Len Stone inspire some confidence, but the two of them don't constitute a majority. They need help. Vreeland's resignation and Pete DeJarnatt's impending retirement will solve part of the problem. The full solution will depend on who replaces them.
 
    The mechanics of the replacement have not yet been decided, but I would hope that whoever winds up in Vreeland's seat can think beyond the old entrenched positions of the past. We need someone who would support a healthy, pro-growth, business-friendly agenda while still protecting our unique coastside environment. It's a matter of balance.If Council can show itself to be as good a steward of our money as they are of of our hills, the community might be more willing to raise taxes. We certainly don't need any more hard-core ideologues or political gadflies. We need a Council that, despite any personal differences, can work together to ensure the social, environmental and financial future of Pacifica. If that happened, I might consider voting for a sales tax increasa. It might be the only way to weather this storm.
 
Paul Slavin

No comments: