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:
Post a Comment