 |
| There's an alligator down there |
The Daily Journal (San Mateo), Bill Silverfarb, 4/11/13. "Belmont drops sewer fix, home sale mandate."
"Mandatory sewer lateral inspections and repairs when property owners decide to sell their homes will not be required in Belmont, the council decided Tuesday night.
.... Some cities in the county already have the mandate but that is due to a court order after pollution watchdog San Francisco Baykeeper sued several cities after excessive sewage waste flowed into freshwater creeks and the Bay. Pacifica, South San Francisco, Millbrae and Burlingame already require the inspections at the point of sale but Belmont is not required to." Read article.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
15 comments:
Anonymous comments at 8:07 AM and 11:48 AM on "Think Pacifica sewer rates stink" has inspired posting this reprint article.
As you see, I'm on the side of replacing these defective sewer laterals period, prior to point of sale. The efficient way to do that would be shared cost through an ongoing city effort. And if a city had money to share cost, that would be ideal.
Remember to email to fixpacifica@gmail.com, the articles you want posted. You may add additional comments, a picture (with location) and a caption if you wish. Bonus, you receive name recognition. Steve posts these submitted articles, and will advise if other information is needed.
Belmont can
Pacifica can not
If previous councils--prior to 2006--had not used sewer tax funds for general fund expenditures, Pacifica's sewer system would be in much better condition and we wouldn't now be paying again for something we already paid for. Previous Council's siphoning off $700,000 a year for pet projects meant no/minimal repairs or maintenance on the sewer system. Perfectly legal until 2006 and the Bighorn Decision which stopped CA cities from "co-mingling" sewer tax funds with a city's general funds.
Thank the citizen watchdogs for Bighorn. May they live long and prosper--especially in Pacifica.
It all comes down to unsustainable pensions and wages.
Our sewer workers are making bank. Yes it's "the going rate" but many cities are going bankrupt because of it.
"It all comes down to unsustainable pensions and wages." Anonymous 8:12 AM
Really? What about the structural economic development deficiency in this city. Of 20 cities in San Mateo County, Pacifica has the lowest General Fund revenue (which also means it spends less per capita on its population).
@8:12am: "making bank," that's a good term which I take to mean that it's a comparable wage to what other cities are paying their workers. Thus lies the problem which also brings up the question, " should a small town like Pacifica, or Any-Small-Town, USA be paying workers the same as they would in one of the "Bigs?" I know the popular thought has been that if a worker doesn't make the same pay, he/she won't stay. So what? Do people really believe that local jobs will go begging? That some local guy will not work for the sewer dept. or police dept. for hypothetically, 20-30% less to avoid having to commute to who knows where? Or perhaps use their initial employment in Pacifica as a stepping stone and move on when the need arises?
Maybe not the best example, but I'm fairly certain that there are police officers around who would rather earn less in Pacifica than have to deal with patrolling in San Francisco or Oakland. Basic Math 101 is that "you can't spend more than you make." Evidently this is something that our town's leaders has failed to understand in recent years,
Kathy, Pacifica has less general fund revenue because we have no tax base. No malls, no casinos, not much retail, no industry to speak of. AND we pay like we do.
We can not afford to pay what San Bruno or SSF pays for police and other employees. We're trying to keep up with the jones's while maxing out our credit cards.
And I agree totally Anon 8:45. If we slash pay and pensions there are plenty of qualified people who would love to be making 50, 60, 70,80, 90 thousand a year. Especially if you consider the median HOUSEHOLD income in Pacifica is only $90,000. That's for an average of two breadwinners.
"Pacifica has less general fund revenue because we have no tax base." Anonymous, 9:32 AM.
Not an adequate tax base, copy that. Of course, I understand the generalized government pension issue vs. the private sector, but the primary financial shortfall in Pacifica is structural. Fix that.
Now with so much permanent open space and NIMBY obstructionism, moving forward is more complicated, but the alternative to status quo rot is progress.
Pacifica became a city to offer better services to its residents. It has done so. Because we're a Bay Area city that means we pay competitive wages and benefits. All fine and well except that we never developed the other side of the equation. The income side. And, apparently while no one was looking, decisions were made about highways and land use and city direction that have forever limited our ability to be self-supporting. Is this city pursuing the commercial cash cows that could improve our situation? No, we're planning a library and hoping an improving economy means the government money faucet will be turned back on so we can go back to enjoying our small businesses and rapidly aging infrastructure. This is Pacifica.
I'm sure there's plenty of cops and firemen who would take less money to work in a much lower stress area like Pacifica RFD. No drive-bys no big gang problems, no murders, stabbing, shootings. No high rise fires or whackos to deal with. Just minor drug violations, fender benders, DUI's and kitchen fires for the most part.
What's council doing to build a tax base? About the same thing they did to cut city salaries. Nada.
Sure, some cities really cut city salaries (not us, not yet), but that's just a one time deal. It just moves the old can down the road. Sounds good, satisfies the angry crowd, but wouldn't solve Pacifica's real problem which is insufficient income. Anything being done about that by anyone at city hall? Not really. Just waiting and studying and surveying and running out the clock.
There are tree trimmers in the sewage treatment plant.
Well of course there are. We couldn't have them lose their jobs just because we outsourced tree-trimming. As luck would have it, the WWTP was hiring to meet the increased work load to keep everything legal and in compliance.
How'd their transition go? Were they cheaper hires than regular WWTP workers with experience? I'm thinking not in Pacifica.
@344 Sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. Release them!
Post a Comment