Fix Pacifica: Delay in release of Pacifica Five-O outsourcing report

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Delay in release of Pacifica Five-O outsourcing report

ahahahahahahahahahah

www.fixpacifica.com/docs/ReportDelay.pdf

Submitted by Marky Mark Stechbart

54 comments:

Anonymous said...: Reading between the lines:

City needs another two weeks to put "their spin" on the report.; March 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll bet they need more time. Too bad they didn't take more time to negotiate those new PD contracts. What a farce this whole thing has been--even by Pathetica standards.; March 20, 2013 at 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: @557 Make that "reading between the lies" if you don't mind.; March 20, 2013 at 7:08 PM
Anonymous said...: So what has changed since Jimmy V and Cecilia Quick ran the town?; March 21, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Bohner, schooled Wagner and Markie Mark in his Letter to the Editor yesterday.; March 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Anonymous said...: @846 What? Nothing's changed. You can't spot the Jimmy disciple? They go way,way back. As for the city attorney? That's pretty much an off-the-shelf item. Pick one up anywhere.; March 21, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: IMHO John Maybury has the best take on our city's undeniably terminal condition. Read it in his 3/20 column under the title Disincorporate Pacifica.
Our problems as a city are insoluble because we've made them so. For decades. The roots of that rancor go deep. Everything is a fight, with self-serving rhetoric from all sides and an unbroken line of thoroughly incompetent and often disingenuous elected officials to point out the landmarks for us on our way down.

Look at this mess! We are a failed city. It is time to give the whole city-thing a rest. It may make development easier (it can't get any harder), common-sense will be more common, and services will be pay as you go.

This experiment has failed. Time to pull the plug and save what we can.; March 21, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: "Our problems as a city are insoluble.." Anonymous 3:31 PM.

How do you like county town management, the way those small communities look, and their services (or not)? NIMBIES think rural is swell, and they refer to Pacifica as "rural" (we are hardly that).

From the structure of what has been developed, it seems this city was on track 50+ years ago. I think we need to try to get back to that the best we can, even though we have much less land and potential now.; March 21, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: What's the difference if it's delayed? Thanks to Len Mary & Ann we couldn't even consider outsourcing until 2014. But hey that's how they roll I guess.

How could those two stab us in the back like that after we waited almost a year to see the report? What were they thinking? O'Neill was the only one who voted against delaying the possibility of outsourcing.

Bravo Mike. We need 3 more like you.; March 21, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Anonymous said...: @March 21 at 8:46 a.m: Talked to a friend of mine over in San Mateo the other day and Cecilia Quick's name came up during our discussion. Seems she's doing or did some City work in that town and gave some erroneous information to some guy who wanted to open a 7/11 store. Now that he's spent the money to open up his store, the City attorney NOW says that it violates zoning laws and wants it shut down. The owner is talking about suing; maybe already has.San Mateo's on the hook for as much as $8 million; that's the number being bandied about.; March 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Kathy Meeh @ March 21 at 3:55 p.m:

You're absolutely right, the City was on track some 50 years ago and why was that? Most likely because the people that ran the town or worked for the City. all lived in the City. People like Cal Hinton, Karl Baldwin, Grace McCarthy, etc. all worked for the good of the town in which they lived. I think it's only natural that people aren't going to be as committed if they don't live here; it's just another workplace. Can we go back to the old days? Probably not, but it would sure be nice to have this City run by its residents rather than looking outside for talent. Scott Holmes lived in Half Moon Bay; Mike Crabtree, I think San Bruno; Van OCampo in SSF; Ms, Quick, San Jose, etc.Granted, Vreeland lives on the Point and I guess he wasn't well perceived ( I don't have an opinion one way or the other myself), so I guess Local isn't always the best way to go, but I think in most cases it would be better. But then who can afford $500k plus for a L.M. rancher? Realistically, quite a few of us wouldn't be living here if we hadn't bought years ago.; March 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kathy, some of those unincorporated towns look a lot better than Pacifica. And as far as potential, we don't have much. It's been given away, or compromised by legacy planning decades in the making. There is no cohesive Pacifica. The sum is less than the parts. We're a bunch of little neighborhoods and there have been a lot of changes in our potential and resources since the town "fathers" cobbled the mix together nearly 60 years ago. We're dreaming if we think we can be self-sustaining in this form. Wrong place and wrong time.; March 21, 2013 at 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...: 602 You and Ms. Meeh are living in the past. And do you really think the city employees and where they live, matters much? In the Bay Area? I would agree that the caliber of our city council in the last 20 years has fallen steadily short of people like Grace McCarthy or Nick Gust or Karl Baldwin but those kinds of people are rare...we were lucky to have them when we did. And that time is over.; March 21, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: @447 Len and MaryAnn are about Len and MaryAnn. May not have started out that way but that's what they are now. Self-serving politicians. They had Rhodes bury that info as far back as last February for their own political reasons.

O'Neill's a breath of fresh air. He's independent and smart and I don't get that shifty "how can I make myself look good" feel from him. Mike, don't morph on us. Please!; March 21, 2013 at 6:42 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: 6:35 PM, clarification of my 3:55 PM comment. What I was referring to was vision and progress.

"I think we need to try to get back to that kind of vision and progress the best we can, even though we have much less land and potential now.."

Also, for me the issue is not where city professionals live. Its a matter of moving this city forward with economic, social and ecological balance into the present and the future (strong emphasis on economic).

Citizens bought "the pot of gold is just over the ecological rainbow", even though it never made sense. Now we're living with the consequences.

FMV that does not mean vacate the city in favor of the county. Same issues, further removed. Think it looks better in those unincorporated towns? Take a drive and see what they have. Not much, less than what we have. We need to fix our problems here, either through cooperation, or by majority city council rule.; March 21, 2013 at 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Like the optimism Kathy, but our problems are bigger than any political solution. We simply don't have the time to get out of this. We can bat council seats around ad infinitum and still get nowhere. We're doing it now. If we started today it would take more than 10 years and no mistakes to build the kind of commercial and residential base to make us healthy. We don't have 10 years. We probably don't have 2 without drastic cuts that will make us resemble an unincorporated area. Lose the expensive municipal baggage, bite the bullet, and enjoy our very distinct neighborhoods. If one of them wants to be a city, they can start fresh.; March 21, 2013 at 7:48 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anonymous 7:48 PM, I do not find your anonymous commentary credible. And without a name, your reference (or more likely agenda) is undetermined.

Disincorporate and "enjoy our very distinct neighborhoods"? Even the dumbest dumb bunny that can't find its way out of its own rabbit hole can figure-out that one. With disincorporation there goes "all we have" as a unified city-- shared monies from the State and Fed gone. Bond rate and rating to borrow monies goes to hell.

Then, the bill to disincorporate and prior city debt (or to later cost to reincorporate), goes to each property owner. And with such change, disincorporation leaves something like five (5) little burgs. "If one of them wants to be a city, they can start fresh." Oh, sure they can. Ding dong-- that will not happen. Example, look to Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada.

Here's a solution. Why don't we just fix our economic development problems. Then some of our social issues of lying to each other may go away. Meantime, the city can limp along, cut more expenses, charge more fees, and/or the citizens have the option to pay higher taxes.

Then, as a City we may continue to enjoy our libraries, art/music/drama centers, fishing pier, festivals, sports, parks, clubs, organizations, charities, Resource Center, Senior Center, television station, cross district conversations, schools, recreation classes, local city services/website etc.; March 21, 2013 at 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kathy Meeh said...
Anonymous 7:48 PM, I do not find your anonymous commentary credible. And without a name, your reference (or more likely agenda) is undetermined.

Pacifica Riptide is an open forum for any comment that is not libelous, defamatory, etc. As moderator, I copyedit comments lightly for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and clarity. I allow screen names (pseudonyms) but prefer that everyone sign with his or her real name, especially in these heated back-and-forth exchanges. Comments have more credibility and legitimacy when signed with real names. This is the lowdown or my name ain't Dolores De Cabeza.

Posted by: John Maybury | March 21, 2013 at 12:07 PM

So how does Fix Pacifica differ from Riptide?; March 22, 2013 at 8:12 AM
Anonymous said...: Kathy, I do not find your reasoning @ 1108 at all compelling. We'll have to agree to disagree. Anonymously.; March 22, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: When an Anonymous advocates with authority that it is best to blow-up Pacifica into "neighborhoods" (allegedly 5 little towns), rather than hold the unified city together-- it's time to put a name to it. That is the ethics difference between accountable and crazy, Anonymous 8:12 AM.

And the fact that you do not "find my reasoning compelling" Anonymous 9:02 AM, 3/21, 7:48 PM is expected. Who are you and what is your agenda? My guess, your comments may be part of what appears to be a possible emerging NIMBY effort to turn Pacifica into rural dirt towns. No thanks. Do some of "you people" ever stop your nonsense?; March 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I have yet to see anyone from this blog, riptide, or patch run for city council. Or have I seen anyone on any committee or do anything to help Pacifica stay out of bankruptcy.

Sitting on your ass and bitching online does nothing!; March 22, 2013 at 9:39 AM
Hutch said...: Maybury is full of crap. He routinely deletes or blocks comments not inline with his gang of no.

That's why there's very little activity on his site.; March 22, 2013 at 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Gang of no, gang of yes. Get the SMC sheriff's in here 'cause we got a gang problem. Oh, that's right we have to wait a year. Duke it our ya bozos.; March 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: 939, "Sitting on your ass and bitching online does nothing!"

Yeah your comment here sure says nothing. You may not have noticed, some people post as Anonymous, Anonymous 939.; March 22, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: When Kathy can't refute someone's argument, she attacks them for being anonymous. It's called an ad hominem logical fallacy.; March 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "When Kathy can't refute someone's argument, she attacks them for being anonymous."

it's not so much that as the fact that she's doing the same thing, as the other anon alluded to, posting anonymous attacks over on riptide under a fake name; March 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: "When Kathy can't refute someone's argument, she attacks them for being anonymous." Anonymous 12:21 PM

With serious or critical claims of knowledge that do not make sense, asking an Anonymous to put their name (and agenda) to those claims, sounds good to me.

Except YOU omitted that essential detail. I did refute "someone's argument" (see the 9:37 AM comment). And uh-oh, once again YOU are the victim of your own "ad hominem logical fallacy". But then, maybe next time you will come up with more thoughtful comments, rather than "stupid insults". If not, its a waste of time, but dealing with someone who has nothing valid to say is easy pickings for me-- come on down.; March 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh Man the return of Hutch.; March 22, 2013 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous said...: BTW this blog edits and deletes more posts then Mayburrito.; March 22, 2013 at 1:45 PM
Anonymous said...: @1221 Silence Imbeciles! Let's not look at the merit, if any, of an idea, let's look only at its supposed origin. Splendid.

Ms. Meeh could ably argue her case, but instead she argues everything else. That's not going to work anywhere but here, because as Pacifica continues to deteriorate, all kinds of ideas will have to be considered. Nothing can be taboo. To assume or even pretend to assume that un-incorporating can only serve the anti-growth agenda ignores the reality that Pacifica is running out of time. Time. That's the enemy now.

More cuts, more taxes, outsourcing...all of it, if council could even bring themselves to act, may not be enough to carry us for the many years before some level of deeply desired, but totally hypothetical, development can sustain us. So we "limp along" cutting out the very things that make us a city...human services, the cops, infrastructure, and we pay a lot more for the privilege. For how many years? That's the best case scenario. Well, just in case the worst happens, we'd better be ready to have open and informed conversations on all the options regardless of who we think brought it up or why.; March 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: It's because the posts are anonymous. That bugs the hell out of Kathy Meeh. It shouldn't.; March 22, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Hutch has been here using a nom de plume teehee make that a nom de guerre. Multiple personalities are not unheard of.; March 22, 2013 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said...: @145 don't doubt you for a minute!; March 22, 2013 at 2:02 PM
Steve Sinai said...: "It's called an ad hominem logical fallacy"

It's tough to make an ad hominem attack against someone who's anonymous.; March 22, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Steve Sinai said...: "BTW this blog edits and deletes more posts then Mayburrito."

This blog doesn't edit comments.

We will delete comments that violate the ground rules listed at the upper left.; March 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: And yet....; March 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: No editing. Got it. And of course you delete more comments than Riptide because you get more comments than Riptide.; March 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anonymous 1:29 PM I do not post comments on Riptide "under a fake name". And I do not make "anonymous attacks" period. But apparently you do.

Looking at Pacifica Riptide today, the only fake name I see is "Big Banker". "Big Banker" comments seem smart and accountable. Whereas, some Anonymous comments here, are not smart and not accountable. Example, Anonymous comment, 1:29 PM.; March 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Steve Siani is the best! YOU LEAVE HIM ALONE!; March 22, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous 1:29 PM I do not post comments on Riptide "under a fake name". And I do not make "anonymous attacks" period."

Here on Fix Pacifica, we report, you decide!

2013

2011; March 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Anonymous said...: "It's tough to make an ad hominem attack against someone who's anonymous."

Huh? An ad hominem attack is very literally an attack against the person, rather than their argument. Kathy does this constantly by talking about the fact that someone is anonymous, rather than discussing what they are saying. How in the hell is that not an ad hominem attack?; March 24, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: "..ad hominem attack is very literally an attack against the person, rather than their argument.." Anonymous 12:09 PM

Then your comment is an ad hominem attack, again.

And again, when an Anonymous person advances disincorporation of our city, its time for that person to put their name to it; because, those careless Anonymous comments sound like the new NIMBY agenda, sugar coated with spin. Think this city hasn't already been subjected to enough neglect and economic disadvantages?

Note for the lost: the "Five-O" article link leads to a city press release, commenting on the delayed police outsourcing report. Just saying...; March 24, 2013 at 2:10 AM
Kathy Meeh said...: Here's what I've decided, Anonymous, 3/11/13, 6:17 PM.

You posted on Riptide as "Big Banker" 3/21/13, utilizing my 9/21/11 comment there. Glad the information was a useful reference.

Your comment. "The city definitely represented itself as the lead agency: "Here's the kicker: The city never was legally the lead agency." Mid-2000s, when City Council member Pete DeJarnatt was mayor, he completed a "window of opportunity" request to move forward with the Calera Creek widening process. The item was agendized through the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Mayor DeJarnatt and council member Cal Hinton represented the City of Pacifica at the supervisors' public meeting in San Carlos. The reason I know: I was one of about 20 Pacificans at that meeting who spoke in favor of advancing the project." Posted on Riptide by: big banker | March 21, 2013 at 09:31 AM. Vs.

My comment. "Here's the kicker: The city never was legally the lead agency." Not exactly, Todd (106pm). Mid-2000s, when Councilmember Pete DeJarnatt was mayor, he completed a "window of opportunity" request to move forward with the Calera Creek widening process. The item was agendized through the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Mayor DeJarnatt and Councilmember Cal Hinton represented the City of Pacifica at the supervisors' public meeting in San Carlos. The reason I know: I was one of about 20 Pacificans at that meeting who spoke in favor of advancing the project." Posted on Riptide by: Kathy Meeh | September 21, 2011 at 10:41 PM.; March 24, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Steve Sinai said...: "How in the hell is that not an ad hominem attack?"

It's pretty hard to personally attack someone when nobody knows who you're attacking.; March 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with knowing who the person is. An anonymous comment may be a valid argument or not. The anonymity of the person making a comment is not relevant to the validity of the argument in the comment.; March 24, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: The audience may not know who is being attacked, but the anonymous poster would know they are the target. So does an ad hominem attack exist if the target is anonymous to others but personally aware they are being attacked? Isn't the critical transaction between attacker and target rather than attacker and audience? I mean, it's not theatre, is it?; March 24, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: telling someone that their argument is not valid because they are posting anonymously is an ad hominem attack.; March 24, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: "So does an ad hominem attack exist if the target is anonymous to others but personally aware they are being attacked? Isn't the critical transaction between attacker and target rather than attacker and audience?"

Anonymity is irrelevant to whether or not there is an ad hominem fallacy. The "critical transaction" is whether the argument is against the comment or against the commenter. Against the commenter is ad hominem and therefore invalid.

"telling someone that their argument is not valid because they are posting anonymously is an ad hominem attack."
- exactly; March 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Oh snap! You mean we have to keep the discussion focused on ideas? You're raising that bar, again. What about the pygmies?; March 24, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Zzzzzzz......

You're putting me to sleet, Socrates.; March 24, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh hell, just make Meeh post as anonymous. All the time.; March 24, 2013 at 12:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh crap, we put the wrong one to sleep!; March 24, 2013 at 12:50 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: Anonymous 10:48, etc. you have again twisted or misrepresented my view through confusion or intent. If confusion, the Fallacies: ad hominem may be helpful to you or not. My consistent position follows:

1) A logical fallacy is a separate issue from hiding as Anonymous. The logical fallacy may occur from confusion or intent. But, 2) promoting a logical fallacy with intent and hiding as Anonymous is at least unethical.

Now may we dumpster this circular conversation, along with that of another name calling ad hominem: hypocrite?; March 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Anonymous said...: All the talk about deleting posts happens in closed session.

With no public input.; March 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM