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
-
▼
2013
(754)
-
▼
January
(72)
- Pacifica Index, breaking news
- Two large grants will restore the Pacifica pier
- Stanford University sued over their Searsvill Dam ...
- Pacifica Index, recent articles of interest
- Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan Update
- New Harbor Board member wins by NIMBY networking
- San Carlos Transit Village EIR approved, meets the...
- San Mateo County guns for cash event last Saturday...
- City Council meeting, Monday, January 28, 2013
- San Mateo peninsula government meetings week of 1/...
- 33rd Eco Farm conference, Pacific Grove tour to ne...
- Mavericks follow-up
- Like - Facebook, and the money keeps rolling-in fo...
- PUC approves plan to block draining Hetch Hetchy R...
- Brisbane city council stalemate to replace council...
- CA Legislation introduced to protect mountain lion...
- I Tawt I Taw a Puddy Tat
- City Council meeting, Monday, January 28, 2013
- Two issues: General vs. Charter City, and dead deer
- Deer management, private relocation and sterilization
- City calendar for this week, January 22 through Ja...
- Planning Commission is cancelled, Tuesday, January...
- Presidential inauguaration 2013
- Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Monday, January 21, 2013
- KSFO Gun Rights Demonstration at Eureka Square
- Fresh & Easy - "food for thought", or not
- No gun shop license, and no background check for t...
- Hail Mavericks, stay safe surfers
- Want to open a business in Pacifica?
- Major economic boom coming to San Jose
- Humane Society removes dead cow from Half Moon Bay...
- Chow Barolo, Hola Puerto 27
- City Council meeting follow-up report, January 15,...
- State of City economics, view from Financing City ...
- Dead deer dumped on your private property is your ...
- New trail loop through McLaren Park, south side o...
- SMC alert - Coastside Auto Burglaries
- City Council meeting tonight, Monday, January 14, ...
- Horsely reverses course
- New Atherton city manager won't live in the free h...
- San Bruno downtown revitalization is in process
- Jerry Hill guest speaker at Democrat's meeting, Sa...
- Sharp Park Golf Course lawsuit, the environmental ...
- Nominate a K-6 teacher who inspires children to le...
- Begin the year with city sunshine: transparency,...
- Sewer system overhaul and lateral replacement, 2013
- City Council meeting, Monday, January 14, 2013
- Progress on employee salary reform in Pacifica
- Anatomy of a NIMBY campaign against a public emplo...
- Horsley says rising economy led him to end his $1 ...
- 4th District Supervisor Warren Slocum, 25 years of...
- Motion to dismiss San Mateo Supervisor election la...
- Huell Howser archives
- California Parks $54 million hidden surplus scanda...
- We are not alone
- Sure, move Pacifica's dog park where? How about t...
- Pacifica city calendar meetings this week, January...
- San Mateo County Supervisor/City Council meetings ...
- Mixed environmental protection results
- Is the Battle of Sharp Park Finally Over?
- Don Horsley named Board of Supervisors President i...
- Stay safe, don't eat the wild mushrooms
- Half Moon Bay Beautification Committee finds closu...
- Two fiscal cliffs slows economic recovery
- Planning Commission meeting cancelled, 1/7/13
- Redwood City population planning for the near future
- California new laws, a partial list carried in the...
- City Manager Stephen Rhodes retires 7/31/12
- Mortgage forgiveness tax debt relief continued unt...
- 2012 San Mateo tax payers improved K12 childhood e...
- Bakersfield bankruptcy in stalemate
- Unfinished national business
-
▼
January
(72)
Visitors:
51 comments:
politican lies.
details at 5 6 and 11
Lionel, I have read your Pacifica Patch comment, 1/13/13, 5:27 pm, and appreciate your intelligence and civility on this issue (even though I agree with Don Horsley's stated position).
Your comment on Pacifica Patch: "I compliment Mr. Horsely on his wise decision to reverse course and keep his campaign promise. It will come in handy at the next election, presuming he runs again, as it takes away a surefire campaign issue for his challengers."..
Don Horsley's stated position, Pacifica Tribune, 1/8/13. "I signed a special waiver following my election that formalized my request not to receive a salary for my work as a Supervisor. ..That waiver expired on Nov. 10, 2012, and I have decided to begin accepting the same salary that all current elected members of the Board of Supervisors in San Mateo County receive." ... Horsley believes he has fulfilled his campaign commitment to forgo a salary which he has done for almost two years. .. "I am honored to be a county supervisor, and I have and will continue to commit all of my time and effort to the job. I am indeed fortunate to have a public safety retirement plan based on my 35 years in law enforcement, but my work as a county supervisor will not increase my existing retirement in any way."
All that waiver garbage was his position AFTER THE FACT. His position during the campaign was that he would not take a salary. Full stop.
Thankfully, he is no longer reneging on his promise, and I won't be forced to vote for a NIMBY like Vargas.
what has this guy done for Pacifica?
"I won't be forced to vote for a NIMBY like Vargas." Anonymous 10:44 PM
That's interesting. You would vote for a NIMBY who takes salary and would have taken salary last election. You would pay all other San Mateo County Supervisors who take salary.
But you would not pay the Supervisor you support, even though that pledge to not take salary was not so clear. And even though that Supervisor already gifted to the county, two years of his salary and benefits.
Your comment defies logic.
1058 what do county supervisors do for pacitica. tune-in or ask the supervisor. what would a nimby supervisor do for pacifica. more open space, against highway improvement, against golf course. maybe you can think of a few possibilities.
You would vote for a candidate that's a bald-faced liar.
Your "logic" defies logic.
1235 you've just proved the bald face nimby liar is you. you would never support this candidate. never ever, nada. total bs from you.
Don't know who the candidates will be next time but after Horsley's about face I might again vote for the guy. But I'm not going to forget that two years into his term he attempted to renege on a campaign pledge to not take a salary during a run for a four year seat or that he attempted to justify it by saying the county is better off. If SMC is better off, it's because the voters were aggressively sold a sales tax by Horsely and his colleagues on the Board. Never during the campaign did he mention a year-to-year option for his pledge or any salary waiver. Both are clumsy attempts at damage control that do not pass the sniff test. He had ample chance during the campaign to qualify his pledge, limit it, or add "until my personal financial circumstances change". He did none of those because it would have diluted the value of the gesture among voters. And he wanted and got maximum value. And SMC should get the maximum value from his pledge..$500,000 over four years. Glad he changed his mind. Keeping your word is sometimes all you can do.
With his "SalaryGate" fiasco Don Horsley has succeeded in putting himself and his record as a supervisor under the microscope. He's now going to have to do more than merely keep his campaign pledge to get re-elected. Actual results will be required. Thanks, Don, you've done us a favor!
Now do us another by kicking our pathetic Council in the arse. On a regular basis.
I'd never support a liar. Apparently Kathy would, though.
@130 If they're pro growth apparently some people will look the other way, but lying is a deal-breaker for some of us regardless of the politics.
And here comes Kathy! Clippety-clop, clippety-clop.
"I'd never support a liar. Apparently Kathy would, though." Anonymous 1:35 PM.
No I don't support YOU or your negative campaign against Don Horsley, President of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.
But who knows, maybe if you keep up the negative campaign against this highly qualified Supervisor, who some of you have pushed into working 4 years for no salary or benefits, he'll just go away.
Isn't that the way this "game plan" has worked so well in Pacifica for 30 years?
Take off your blinders. No one "pushed" him. He voluntarily made a promise not to double dip (before he reneged on that promise and then reneged on reneging).
I'll overlook all his flip-flopping if he does a good job, but he's turned me from a supporter into someone who isn't so sure any more.
Other than excel at being part of the sales team that sold us on additional taxes to maintain vital services, Horsley hasn't done much for the county or Pacifica. And who knew those vital services were going to include Supervisor Horsley's suddenly vital salary? Now, he's got everyone's attention and two more years to impress us with more than just pro-growth rhetoric. In his blundering he's also handed a real campaign issue sure to be used next time by his NIMBY and other opponents. What were you thinking, Don?
So are we to believe that a pro-growth stance is more important than honesty? That a public servant gets a pass on integrity as long as he mouths a certain rhetoric? That's just more of the love me, love my dog mindset that makes politics such a cesspool.
Just another blow hard politican making promises they don't intend to keep.
"Take off your blinders. .." Anonymous 2:00 PM, etc.
Blinders, seriously? Again, where is that definitive "won't take salary forever" pledge, produce it. Meantime the core claim of your trash Don Horsley campaign is in itself in question.
Meantime, YOU are "flip flopping" (your word) on whether to support a) the solid moderate candidate you allegedly voted for, still "free"; while b) wishfully lamenting you had voted for the NIMBY or conservative crock. And you would pay the "NIMBY or the crock $120,000 annually, plus benefits. After all, they would keep their 4 year pledge to take the salary and benefits.
Its all so confusing, spiced with moral indignation, right Anonymous 2:00PM, 3:11 PM, 3:35 PM? Yet your moral indignation sounds as transparent as backwater politics. But don't worry, some doofuses will believe you. More of us will not.
I know this is all true cause it is on the Internet. Everyone knows everything on the Internet is the truth.
Where is that definitive "I will only not take a salary for two years" pledge (and no, we don't mean the one he just announced way after the fact)? Did you assume that all his other campaign promises were for only two years? Where did that arbitrary length come from? Is Horsley confused on his term of service?
It's difficult to understand your confusion, Kathy. People don't want to support a liar. It's pretty plain and simple.
Apparently not so plain and simple to Kathy Meeh. She's flailing about still looking for that definitive "won't take salary for four years" pledge while ignoring the practical, common-sense inference that most of us drew from the candidate's oh so clear campaign promise...running for a 4 year seat, saying elect me and I won't double-dip..well, the implication is that you won't do so for 4 years not 1 not 2 not 3 but all 4! Horsley knew that's what he said and what people understood. That's why he's flipped his flop.
But do keep flogging, Ms. Meeh! Agenda 21 and the rest of the mutants have been very quiet while you've been otherwise engaged.
Kathy,
Mr. Horsely's campaign pledge did not, to my knowledge, contain the words: ...and this pledge is good for two years."
He promised not to take the salary, period.
So here's the back story, at least as we can divine it. Mr. Stogner, who is a fine activist and supervisorial watcher noticed that Mr. Horsely was gonna go back on his pledge. He called him on it and went public with this information, which of course, IS public information.
The media, which is so weakened that they don't have anybody at these supervisor's meetings, picked up on it and published and the public went apes###.
I'm sure Mr. Horsely, who is a member in good standing of the very small club running this county, was very surprised, and not in a pleasant way.
Score one for the people.
"..won't take salary for four years" pledge.." Anonymous 5:35 PM, 7:16 PM
Yep the issue its simple enough. Prove your point. Contracts and agreements are made in writing. Don Horsley referred to an agreement he made with the County that terminated, November, 2012. The County is government, and YOU should be able to get a copy of that agreement, and show us.
The balance of this trash you've been throwing at Supervisor Don Horsley over several days while you hide under Anonymous cover is despicable. And without proof at the core of your argument, it fails.
Good grief Meeh, In Horsley's own words at the end of his flip flop, "I made a commitment to forego the salary, and I will keep that commitment."
Not much wiggle room in that one.
And as far as that agreement you're looking for... nothing more than the "special waiver" Horsley refers to several times. That sounds like politician-on-the-hot-seat talk for a payroll document to support and authorize an exception to normal payroll. It's the paper trail that payroll depts love and Horsley shamefully tried to sell to a furious public as something else. I believe he now is very wisely keeping his mouth shut on this entire fiasco. He's got 2 years to produce results that might make people overlook this mess. Of course his opponents will refresh voter's memories every chance they get and that might be enough.
Pretending that when someone makes a campaign promise, it's only good for two years is despicable. In your childish insistence to have the last word, you are continuously reminding everyone that Horsley tried to weasel out of his pledge, which does not help his next campaign, should he choose to have one.
"Score one for the people." Lionel Emde 1/14/13, 12:00 AM
Lionel, I don't think an official not taking salary is necessarily a good thing for the individual, or for the government and the community.
People close to me respond to Don Horsley's intent to take salary as "Hosley will take salary". Similar to me, previously they were not informed that he had not taken salary prior, and it just wasn't a big deal period.
And its doubtful that not taking salary made any difference in the election outcome. The majority of San Mateo County chose Don Horsley (38.6%), whereas runner-up second was April Vargas (24.2%). The candidate experience and views are different, and the majority of people knew who they were voting for.
Anonymous 5:49 AM, 8:25 AM, its over. Don Horsley is not taking earned compensation (salary or benefits) for the full 4 years. So you may stop your vicious, anonymous, no proof campaigning any time soon.
Kathy, quit making excuses. The guy lies and is just another crook politican.
"Another crook politician"??? Anonymous 9:56 AM
Then, better to pay politicians. Less incentive to be a "crook".
And what I said were observations (opinion and fact), not excuses.
Kathy, just because its a fact in your make believe world and in your head does not make it a true fact.
a factoid we can all embrace, well maybe all minus one..or two...Don Horsely will save the county $500,000 by honoring his campaign pledge for 4 years. half a million dollars folks! if he does run again that's a contribution he can be proud of. he and Warren Slocum are putting our money to better use. bravo gentlemen!
"..does not make it a true fact." Anonymous 10:58 AM.
The definition of "true fact" is found the Urban Dictionary. The third definition may work for you."A fact purported by a speaker to be genuinely true, in contrast to the other facts presented by the speaker."
Hence, by your own definition, without core "genuinely true" proof, "other facts" described as "flaky assertions" remain. And these "flaky assertions" are at the core of your allegations.
Or, assume rather than a "true fact", you were referring to a "material fact": "A fact that would be important to a reasonable person in deciding whether to engage or not to engage in a particular transaction; an important fact as distinguished from some unimportant or trivial detail." The problem is the core "material fact" is missing, and you have not made believing you "reasonable", compounded by your relentless smear campaign.
Hence, your argument fails and there is no reason to believe you.
oh dear god will someone stick a fork in that one, it's done
yeah, put up the crime scene tape, rope it off, get a latte and move on
Kathy,
The waiver that Mr. Horsely signed as a necessary part of the paperwork involved in NOT taking the salary was for two years. Since his term is four years, it is reasonable to assume that he had the intention of trying to do what he tried to do, and didn't quite succeed in.
I have nothing against the man, but I think I could somehow get along on $215,000 per year, or whatever the exact figure is, while performing public service as a thank you to the taxpayers of San Mateo County.
And don't forget the mandatory yearly cost of living increases in his pension that he will receive, it will help alleviate his pain.
Oh Lionel, must you stir that can of worms?
99% of us know Horsley attempted a bait and switch with the voters and he caught by a vigilant public and the free press. Is this a great country, or what?
Had Horsley been up front with the voters about the length of his salary waiver there would be no uproar. Instead he tried to get maximum political mileage out of his pledge, didn't say it was for less than the full term, ended up looking like a liar caught in his lie and had to honor the pledge. That's an excellent outcome, but we should watch him very carefully from now on.
I think Horsley is going to thank us when he runs for re-election and the biggest thing on his scorecard is that he saved SMC half a million in salary and benefits simply by keeping his campaign promise. We don't have to talk about the arm-twisting, no, no.
Lionel (7:19 pm), thank you for establishing the 2 year salary waiver. And it seems if Don Horsley's intent was not to take salary for the full 4 years, there would be a contractual agreement, declaration, news release, Supervisor minutes, etc., something. He said, "I didn't say forever", so there must have been wiggle room in the pledge.
That said, the earned government pension is "over the moon" generous. But, salary is separate from pension. And without a further stated commitment, FMV its more likely after the 2 year waiver, Don Horsley was entitled to take salary and benefits (the same as other County Supervisors). Now we know he will not take salary for the full 4 years. So be it, moving on.
Anyhow, Lionel, thanks for your informative, philosophical and rational thoughts on this issue.
Don's always had wiggle room in his head.
Campaign promises do not "entitle" one to deceive, no matter the custom.
Lionel@1039 I think Horsley has learned that very lesson the hard way. Life goes on and he can turn this $500,000 gift to the county to his political advantage down the rode. Bet he makes the terms perfectly clear next time.
"..Bet he makes the terms perfectly clear next time." Anonymous 7:13 AM
Bingo! Don Horsley's honorable pledge occurred when the County treasury was in trouble. Thus far, there has been no absolutist 4 year pledge produced.
Consistent with his many news statements: when the county economy improved, and his expenses increased measurably, he felt no further allegiance to continue the (contingent) pledge. That seems reasonable to me. And as another anonymous comment (not on this article), "we get it".
Lionel, if the 1/15/13, 10:39 PM follow-up comment was yours (and I'm not sure it was), its doubtful that Don Horsley felt "entitled to deceive." He was entitled to take salary and benefits, and he won the moderate countywide vote (no surprise). So, there was no perceivable motive to deceive.
FMV, Michael Stogner appears to be nothing other than a sore 6.8%, 2010 loser. Latest article from the Pacifica Tribune, 1/15/12.
Outcome, Don Horsley will extend the "I will not take salary" pledge to 4 years, (this to avoid further discord). Lionel, although I respect your measured view, (and the fact you signed your name to it), I don't consider this outcome to be a "win for the people", but again its done.
Kathy, Why are you defending this liar and crook?
If are you referring to yourself, Anonymous 12:14 PM, including your several day unsubstantiated smear comments about Don Horsley? No, I'm not defending YOU, and would not consider doing such. Its over, time for you to retreat back under the rock you crawled out of.
45 comments too many, jeez everyone move on
Back to your rocks everyone!
With Kathy editing out the comments she doesn't like, there are many comments eliminated for you 8:38 (although it turns this blog into a POS in my opinion). Follow Riptide for a similar situation.
Michael G. Stogner
"I don't know if I said it. I don't remember," Mr. Horsley said when asked about the $1 a year pledge.
The decision was based on the county's structural deficit, which "put us in an austerity position," he said.
In a Jan. 19, 2009, press release, 18 months before the June 2010 primary election, San Bruno-based political consultant Ed McGovern leads with this statement attributed to Mr. Horsley: "As a former San Mateo County Sheriff and county employee, I am fortunate that I receive an excellent package of benefits, and believe the compensation I would be awarded as a County Supervisor would be better spent elsewhere. Therefore, if elected, I will forgo my salary and benefits so that the money may be used for other County needs.
" Asked if he wanted to comment, Mr. Horsley said "No, not really. It definitely was a press release."
Enough already. The argument is going around in circles.
No circles, Steve, it's pretty obvious.
Post a Comment