 |
| Not true? But this excuse sounds so reasonable |
Planning commission notification, George White, Planning Director, 12/20/12.
"Notice is hereby given that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission of January 7, 2013 has been cancelled." Again.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
25 comments:
no planning in Pacifica. Nope none
Do they even ever give a reason why all these meetings are canceled? Are there any rules they have to follow like un excused absences? Who is watching these people?
no planning no plans no building.
The reason why the meetings are cancelled.
Unless you where a friend of Jimmy V all permits where fast tracked through No planning no city council.
zoom
Other than the occassional house being built or added on to, there's no building going on so why bother to meet? Happening elsewhere, too. This is the way it's going to be here for quite a while. This time it's more about a total lack of interest and financing than anything else.
Question: If the Planning Commission meetings are cancelled, do the commissioners still get paid for the non-meeting? Does anyone know?
They don't even get paid if there is a meeting. Hello!
Planning Commissioners don't get paid.
Anonymous @12:49 again.
I thought that there was some stipend involved with the position of being a member of the planning commission. The number $400 per month seems to ring a bell. I believe that I had also been told that there was health coverage involved. I could be wrong on both counts although the information, as I recall was given to me by someone I knew who had been on the planning commission. That was years ago, so I might be foggy about the details.
Then again, if there is no pay, if there are no benefits, why would possess anyone to want to be on the planning commission? Self-abuse?
"if there is no pay, if there are no benefits, why would possess anyone to want to be on the planning commission?"
My thoughts exactly. But no, they don't get any pay or stipend or benefits of any kind except the satisfaction of serving their community. Bizarre, in't it?
whoa anon@345 you really want to start a sh#@ storm! No record of comp or benies for commission or committee appointments. This city is certainly capable of hiding these troublesome sorts of details, but this one would be hard to hide. So, why would anyone serve? They want to give back to the community or push an agenda or gain recognition for a future political run. Only thing that rings a bell for the $400 you mention as far as the city goes is that $400 per month is actually the standard comp for city council members in a city the size of Pacifica. That info is according to the CA Municipal Codes which Pacifica, as a general city, operates under. The codes also allow for a city council to increase their salary whenever and that is what has happened in Pacifica to bring us to the current council salary of $700 or $750 per month plus all the benefits that city senior staff receive plus the option to take cash-in-lieu of those benefits and increase their wages to nearly $20,000 per year. Like senior staff they also are eligible for a pension. To be clear, the increase from $400 to 700 happened quite a while ago. The cushy benefits and cash-in-lieu option (aka cafeteria cash)happened within the last 5 or 6years. Lots of city councils waive all pay and benies but not ours 'cause they're so good and we're so rich.
That's nuts. We should all call them names, make up ridiculous conspiracies, and criticize their every move in retribution for their service to our city.
Oh, wait.... Everyone on Fix Pacifica already does that.
Well bully for these commissioners for serving for nothing but that doesn't earn them a free pass when it comes to public opinion. And this council is well compensated for their time. They and their appointments serve the public and the public's skepticism is growing--with good reason. If these public servants don't like the heat,they should get outta the kitchen!
Kathy
You should be outraged about this. Your democrat buddy Al Gore sold out to the enemy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/01/02/current-tv-near-sale-to-al-jazeera-likely-500-million-deal-for-al-gore-and-co/
"... Al Gore sold out to the enemy", Anonymous 6:59 AM
Really? And I though Fox News was "the enemy" (your words). But, right-wingers should be happy with this pure capitalism Hyatt and Gore transaction. From the Forbes article you provided: “When considering the several suitors who were interested in acquiring Current, it became clear to us that Al Jazeera was founded with the same goals we had for Current,” Hyatt wrote. “Al Jazeera, like Current, believes that facts and truth lead to a better understanding of the world around us.”
From the counterpart Al Jazeera article, 1/3/13, and 2:47 minute video: "The Qatar-based network said on Thursday that with the acquisition it plans to create Al Jazeera America, a US-based news channel. Al Jazeera’s coverage will soon be available in more than 40 million US households, up from 4.7 million prior to the deal." On the video, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is quoted: "You may not agree with it, but Al Jazeera is real news." The article also notes that Al Jazeera America originates from Al Jazeera English, and will carry 60% USA news.
Currently our United States news networks carry very little international news, and much of what we do see is provincial, FMV. I'm looking forward to seeing what this channel offers. Current TV has had some good programming, sorry to see it go.
Kathy
You do know it is the Arab's world anti american news agency right?
"Al Gore sold out to the enemy"
A lot of right wing talking heads are framing it this way, but Al Jazeera is an internationally respected news source, and a point of view that Americans should be able to see. For an in depth look at Al Jazeera, I suggest viewing Control Room, a highly rated documentary on them. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/control_room/
Al Jazeera is funded by Big Saudi Oil. I thought green lips hated oil?
"..Arab's world anti american news.." Anonymous 10:44 AM
Al Jazeera America will compete with other news in America. It is doubtful their news will be less reliable than RT or Fox. CNN World article (controversy about Al Jezerra entering US market), 1/5/13.
And will Al Jazerra news be less reliable than some Fix Pacifica blog comments, and links to blogs from right-wing hell? New York Times, 9/20/11 article (Al Jazeera replaces its top news director, US bias).
One thing for sure, we'll probably learn more about the middle-east, and the impact of Qatar in the middle-east. New York Times article, 10/24/12.
"Qatar allied with the West in helping oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya, while financing Islamists on the ground. In Egypt, it has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In Syria, it provides cash and weapons to Islamists battling President Bashar al-Assad, and at the same time it hosts a large United States military base that affords it protection in a volatile neighborhood. But for all the contradictions in its policies — and there are many — Qatar is advancing a decisive shift in Arab politics that many in the West have yet to embrace: a Middle East dominated by mainstream Islamist parties brought to power in a region that is more democratic, more conservative and more tumultuous."
Oh, I get it. Only oil from Republican Texans green lips does not like. Of course. Saudi Oil is so much better.
"Al Jazeera is funded by Big Saudi Oil..." Anonymous 12:16 PM
Qatar is a country geographically next door to Saudi Arabia. Here. The separate country monarchies do not always agree. If interested, see Foreign Policy, 7/21/11, and Foreigh Policy in Focus, 9/26/12.
Does this sound like a religion of peace to you? "Oh, Allah, take this oppressive Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one." This was part of a longer address by Yusuf al-Qaradaw, a host on al Jazeera, in 2009
"Does this sound like a religion of peace to you?"
Here is a graph of major religions. The core beliefs of these religions or none are all peaceful.
This morning on Current TV (Stephanie Miller program) I heard that "Glenn Beck is taking $1 million per year to say things that far right-wing "Freedom Works" would like to hear," (propaganda). At this time I'm not able to confirm that comment in the main stream press. But it opens the question, how much are you paid to terrorize Fix Pacifica?
Wikipedia. "Terrorism. After the September 11 attacks, al-Qaradawi urged Muslims to donate blood for the victims and said:
"Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack against innocent human beings a grave sin; this is backed by the Qur'anic verse which reads: "Who so ever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and who so ever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind," (Al-Ma'idah:32). The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, 'A believer remains within the scope of his religion as long as he doesn't kill another person illegally.' Islam never allows a Muslim to kill the innocent and the helpless."
So, apparently that's the point of view of Yusuf al-Qaradaw, an Egyptian Islamic theologian (scholar), age 86.
Again, no direct link and context from your sideways, incendiary comment. And keep in mind that Fox and RT also have talk shows, similar to other TV stations around the world.
Wikipedia is changed by , well, just about anyone. And, your beloved Snopes is run by two people who hold no degrees from presigious schools or do any research of any kind. I worry about people like you who get their talking points from the Democrat Leader Debbie Wasserman Schulzt. It should be a concern of every citizen of Pacifica. Terrorize? LOL!
What does any of this have to do with the PC cancellation? Could the two of you please exchange email addresses and conduct your conversation offline? Thanks
"Wikipedia...Snopes..talking points" Anonymous 11:06 AM
Studies indicate the reliability of Wikipedia is quite good. The reliability comparison was to that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also Wikipedia links are quite good.
Is Snopes reliable? "Snopes aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends. The site has been referenced by news media and other sites, including CNN,[12] Fox News Channel,[13] MSNBC[14] and Australia's ABC on its Media Watch program." Wikipedia article/Main site. And here's Snopes article about Barbara and David Mikkelson.
As for your fixation on Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I don't know much about her, but she seems like a good human being with an important job: Democratic National Committee chairwoman. New York Times, 4/24/11 article.
Talking points must be something you ascribe to, because you keep repeating the same. I don't know about "talking points", I have a brain. That brain questions, and deselects most unreasonable and unreliable data.
Anonymous 11:24 AM, get over it. As long as Anonymous people are allowed to promote propagandizing political HATE comments, someone has to counter. I would prefer the person countering would be you. And your further comment to "take it off line". Where? To an anonymous email, does that make sense to you?
Post a Comment