We need to elect moderate city council members. The point-of-Sale (POS) sewer ordinance is proving to be an albatross for homeowners here in Pacifica.
The draft delivered to city council from the Climate Action Task Force, approved by our illustrious planning commission, is packed full of POS stipulations. Whatever Richard Campbell is touting in public as a city council candidate does not hold up to his actions on the planning commission. Talk is cheap. Jim Wagner
The following was posted on the the SAMCAR newsletter
"In the end, the South San Francisco City Council last night refused to adopt a reauthorization of the city’s controversial Point-of-Sale (POS) home inspection program. As one Council member stated, “I want our Fire Department to be progressive without interfering with any more transactions.”
At a study session on the POS dictate, the City Council heard from aggrieved home owners and residents as well as SAMCAR, SFAOR and CREAA members. All of them provided testimony and evidence to the impracticality of the POS process as well as the onerous administration and fines/penalties of the program.
A
special presentation was made by SAMCAR members John Penna, Greg Bryant
and John Gieseker, SAMCAR legal counsel Michelle Zaccone, Executive
Officer Steve Blanton and Government Affairs Director Paul Stewart.
Among many issues raised was the city’s right to enter a property for inspection. As was noted to the Council, “routine health and safety inspections have a long history of judicial and public acceptance, according to a federal and state law and court cases. However, generally speaking, an administrative agency (a state or local government) may not inspect a private property unless it has first obtained an inspection warrant.” The city’s ordinance stated the inspections were mandatory and a permitted right of the city, thus constituting a program of warrantless searches.
In South San Francisco, the Fire Department also does code enforcement (not the Building Department per se). They do the POS inspections (meaning they can stop or kill the closing of a home sale) for state mandated items - smoke and CO detectors, water heater strapping and quick release apparatus for bars on windows.
None of these require an onsite inspection under state law. Verification can be legally accomplished by what’s colloquially termed ‘self-certification’ – which includes signatures from buyers/sellers and buyers’/sellers’ agent – as provided for on the TDS and other disclosure forms. Every other city in San Mateo County accepts the TDS.
However, the Fire Department also cites home owners for ‘unpermitted work’ if their inspectors see or suspect something was done illegally. The Fire Department has claimed (and by extension, the city) that they are concerned about public health and life safety on a citywide basis. SAMCAR has consistently opposed such POS requirements noting the solution should truly be on a citywide basis and not selectively penalize the few that can afford to buy or sell a home."
Reference - San Mateo County Association of Realtors, SAMCAR. "Mission statement. SAMCAR
is a trade association organized to ensure professionalism, protect
property rights, promote the ownership of real property, and help
members achieve success." Jim Wagner is a professional mortgage broker in Pacifica.
22 comments:
I love it how none of the Realtor' s in town sent this in to be posted.
Wagner? Realtor?
What does SAMCAR mean?
Wagner, Isn't a Realtor. Realtor's sell houses. Lenders finance houses
@119 Close enough.
"At a study session on the POS dictate, the City Council heard from aggrieved home owners and residents as well as SAMCAR, SFAOR and CREAA members. All of them provided testimony and evidence to the impracticality of the POS process as well as the onerous administration and fines/penalties of the program."
That's the key. If the people start objecting, city council people react. If people don't
go to meetings and say something, or call council people and complain, then this sort of crap goes forward.
"..If the people start objecting, city council people react. If people don't go to meetings and say something, or call council people and complain, then this sort of crap goes forward." Lionel Emde, 6:19 PM.
How refreshing to read a comment on this thread by an intelligent person with a real name. Thanks Lionel!
Having said that, I think most of us will replace our sewer laterals, put solar panels on our roofs to run electric, and transition to other energy and consumption efficiencies.
(And I agree with you Anon 7:25 AM that SAMCAR needed to be added to the article. The reference, link, mission statement and a picture were added this morning).
The city get's a fine for the poop plant not working correctly and crafty Celcia and Slick Jimmy and Sneaky Pete, figure out a way to screw over the property owners.
Oh wait it gets better the city never maintained the sewer pipes under our streets.
Someone should get a copy of the reports that the robot cameras have seen.2-3 feet of pipe missing. Dirt and ground water in and poop water out into the ground.
Only in Pacifica!
@949 It's a fact that Pacifica for at least a decade used sewer tax funds for everything but the sewer system. The city allowed the system to decay to the point that it polluted the environment. How ironic that this happened on the watch of Pacifica's enviro army. Then the Bighorn Decision a few years ago put a stop to CA cities looting such funds for their general use.
Seems like it was about then that those sewer laterals became the home owner's responsibility. Do other cities see it that way? Just curious. If this is not the norm but more of a Pacifica quirk, is it reversible, challengeable? Anyone know?
The city needs to pay for the laterals. They looted the sewer funds for years to pad the general fund. Legal at the time but unethical. Who has to bail them out again? Property owners. Meanwhile the city always has the money for their pet projects, consultants, staffing, assorted junk. Let them find the money for the laterals. It's there.
They have no money because they're paying the sewer plant Union workers too much. $!50,000 is way too much in this economic environment. Mayb the city can grow a pair and start negotiating some serious cut as most other cities are.
"The city needs to pay for the laterals." Anonymous 2:10 PM
Guess the city paying for property owner sewer laterals is on your wish list, but (guess what) the city revenue isn't there, and in the future probably will never be there.
30 years of encouraging citizens to donate their larger parcels of land to open space (and take the tax break), and blocking development (including smart development) takes its structural toll. We are here.
I think the best we can do at this point is to vote for and support city council candidates who will work to clean-up the mess. Of these, the Chamber of Commerce endorsements (Nihart, Vellone, and O'Neill) are potentially most likely to win. Vote for them.
The Sierra Club and related environmental organizations have joined with our city NIMBYS to keep Pacifica underdeveloped, and never to be developed with a balanced economic-civic-environmental overlay. The result is we live in the poorest city in San Mateo county (based upon General Fund per capita spending).
With scarcity of city revenue, the choices are: 1) frugal cost cutting, including staff, equipment and services; 2) passing more cost, fees and taxes to residents, property owners, business owners; 3) ongoing volunteerism; and 4) continued decay. Hence, that leaves the city with less efficiency, ongoing infectious denial, fewer city benefits, and greater potential for mistakes and cover-up.
Bottom line, given the state of Pacifica, the city needs to think smart and step up. Hiring a professional economic development director is a step in the right direction to develop and improve what we can.
Kathy
The city is too broke to pay attention. Hiring someone costs money, an economic development person?
How do you plan to pay for this. Have public works pick up cans at the beach? Oh wait they are doing this already.
Hire a young intern? Hire a seasoned veteran and you have to pay them big money.
"Hire a seasoned veteran and you have to pay them big money." Anonymous 5:33 PM
Yes, do that. The city cannot afford the alternative. See city council agenda 10/22/12, item 11.
"Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire an economic development firm, $25,000-$30,000. Scope of work, defined by council goals: "one stop permit possibilities, staffing the economic development function, working with shopping centers and tourism." RFP responses are due 11/16/12, selection of consultant firm, 12/10/12. Staff recommends freeing up $225,000 for staffing and function of the project by delaying proposed Motor Pool purchases, from 2013/14 to 2014/15."
Yeah, the fools finally figured out we need a real director of economic development more than we need a new dump truck. Brilliant people, brilliant! Why the moment of clarity? Public pressure and it makes a heck of a campaign issue, too, but we'll take it anyway we can get it. Now if they only follow through with some talent and enough authority and support to do the job.
Kathy, true, it may be on my wish list, but I still say the city should pay for the laterals because it is the city who for years took the sewer tax funds paid by homeowners, comingled them with the general fund, and spent them on anything but the sewer system. Legal at the time, but unethical in the extreme because they knew the sewer system needed those funds. I believe it was about $700,000 per year. Call it restitution, or fair, or the right thing, but the city should pay. I don't buy for a minute that they can't find the money tucked away somewhere for a rainy day.
Kind of late in the game to be pulling out all the desperation steps to bring a couple bucks into town. 30 million for a library. Did they get the memo we are a broke city?
Kick the can, down the road, rob Peter to pay Paul always comes back to haunt.
Now we have a broken down city with no way to pay for services.
I just found your blog regarding the South San Francisco's POS inspections.
South City has been having these inspections for many years. It was only a couple of years ago that I discovered that the City was requiring these inspections, yet they did not have an ordinance to support it.
Yes, I am a Realtor with SAMCAR(San Mateo County Association of Realtors) for over 26 years with much of my business in South City so I know what is going on.
Now South City is trying to pass an ordinance to legally have these inspections. Funny thing, it is against our 4th Amendment to require any inspection without probably cause as was stated by the SAMCAR attorney at the October 17, 2012 City Council Special Study Session meeting.
If these POS inspection ordinance gets passed, then it will start happening in all the cities which again is against our constitutional rights.For more information read my blog at www.SouthCityBlog.com to stay up to date on this. Your City could be next.
Thanks Carole, Paciifca has 100 Real Estate agents and not one of them posted this.
Can we say zzzzzz
"it is against our 4th Amendment to require any inspection without probably cause." So Pacifica's $150 annual fire inspection fee for businesses is unconstitutional? Can you cite any court rulings or case law?
It's not news.
The 4th amendment protects us against unlawful search and seizure. We can thank King George for inspiring the Founding Fathers on that one. Good luck extending its protections to defective sewer laterals.
Post a Comment