Updated Pacifica Tribune/Letters to the Editor, 6/25/13. "Pacifica Poll" by Bob Hutchinson
 |
| More taxes are not good for the city's future, we're voting NO! |
I would also be interested to see how they framed all the questions and what times of day they called, and any other data. Were most calls during the day? If so they would be reaching more seniors who can be exempted. That would explain a lot.
 |
| Sure I'm exempt, but this city needs economic development, NOT more taxes |
On another subject, I was very disappointed Rich Campbell was re-appointed to the planning commission. I thought we were on a new course? Trying to increase our tax base? The last person we needed to keep was an environmental lawyer for the EPA who was supported by the Sierra Club. The same Sierra Club that tried to shut down Sharp Park Golf Course. Rich Campbell stated before his landslide council loss last year that he didn't believe building more residential housing was good because it costs more in services than it generates in revenues. Really? This is an unproven theory that doesn't hold up in the Bay Area. This man should not be on the PC. The voters spoke loud and clear last year when Rich lost his council bid by around 25% to Mike O'Neill even though there were four candidates watering down the vote. Very disappointing that Campbell was kept on."
Note: Permission to reprint the above full Pacifica Tribune Letter to the Editor without Mercury News copyright restriction is extended to Fix Pacifica courtesy of Bob Hutchinson. Update from Bob: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence added. Photographs: Couple from King County Department of Assessments, woman from The Atlantic Journal Constitution.
Submitted by Bob Hutchinson
Posted by Kathy Meeh
164 comments:
Good LTE Hutch!
Hey Hutch, Whether you vote for the UUT or don't will likely have zero impact on city salaries. Less effect than Pacifica being broke has had.
A few days ago, I saw a TV news report that San Jose is lowering and removing certain development fees to build a very large building in their downtown.
Pacifica too could do more to develop permanent tax revenue in this city. Building the quarry still remains outstanding, even though the "sweeter deal" of redevelopment and interested developer with a balanced plan may be gone.
Surely the city can come up better solutions than selling the same 'ol temporary or permanent tax "snake oil" to our citizens.
Big difference between "can do attitude" and "can't do attitude."
Sitting around saying poor poor us we are a poor city was the rallying cry of the "gang of now councils" for the last 20+ years.
San Francisco has added more that 20,000 apartments and Condos in the past 7 years which are all full and another 30,000 planned for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile Pacifica lost population.
you dreamers. click your heels. click, click. you got nothing. not even ruby slippers.
252 this council is saying the same thing and they've fostered just about as much economic growth as the previous lot. this is Pacifica for the foreseeable future.
"you dreamers. click your heels. click, click. you got nothing. not even ruby slippers."
Thanks to the Gang of No.
Absolutely, Steve, but can we stay afloat for the next 8-10 years hoping for, and even working towards, economic development or will we need a tax of some sort?
We got rid of the Gang of No, apart from Sue. As long as we put a time limit on it, we should give the new guys a chance and give them their tax before the stupid and short-sighted term limits start knocking the good guys out.
A 5-year time limit is essential for me to vote for this. (I can probably be convinced to go out to 7 years, but no more.)
I'd also like to know what proportion of the tax money will go to various purposes. If most of this is intended to go to salary increases, then fuggedaboutit.
There are no guarantees as to what the money can be used for in Pacifica. Even if they said none of this would be used for wages that would just free up other money to be used for it.
The gang of no included members of council, planning commission members,city staff, and the 50 or so core group of nobees mainly the Valemar gang of no.
Since the revenues from this tax must go into the general fund it can not be targeted to specific budget items.
You got your council, except for one, but now you don't even trust them. I'm starting to realize that you Fix Pacifica people just enjoy whining.
Amen Anon 7:45! I think they watch too much Fox News. They probably think the media is liberal as well.
I'd vote for something with a 5 to 7 year sunset. Truly a major disappointment, but we've been overly-optimistic in how fast a turn-around can be made in Pacifica. The double whammy of 40 years of no growth policies and the Great Recession did too much damage. Some of that damage, like the loss of developable land, is permanent and cannot be ignored.
I want this council to work harder and smarter on economic development and pander less to those who oppose it. Having said that, programs for kids, working parents, seniors, and the growing number of needy Pacificans, are more important to me than $200 a year. With a 5 to 7 year sunset, I'd vote for this. Without it, not a chance.
Not sure how to control what the money is used for without changing this into one of those 2/3rds kind of votes, but we should hold councils' feet to the fire on that.
Left to their own devices, imho, they will fritter it away.
I think the only way I'd be convinced they are being "honest" is if city salaries went no higher for the duration of the tax. No sly benefit bumps either. Let the unions know early and stick to it. Good reason to sunset it at 5 years. As we've seen on here, these salaries are near the bottom among cities in SMC, but they are more than adequate. And, they are apparently quite attractive. Of course, such an agreement can't be formal and it isn't enforceable. But it isn't targeting or restricting funds which they cannot do. An MOU with the voters? It's up to council and imo it should be considered.
Trust and respect are both earned.
Tom
Remember the measure A money used for trails instead of road improvements like it was intended.
How bout the council shilling the fire department for the fire tax then dumping the money into the general fund.
I, like Steve need to have a five year sunset on this tax. I think the taxpayers need to be able to see both the impact on their wallets and what they are getting for their money. As an aside I really hate the term modernize we are talking about expanding the scope of the tax not putting on a new coat of paint. It's past time for elected officials to stop treating the voters like a bunch of dummies.
I have noticed this trend myself: champion your candidates and then when they make common sense decisions complain that they sold out. If that happens to one of your candidates, the problem might be them. But if it happens to all of them, the problem might be you.
I observed the same thing a few years ago with environmentalists that thought the council wasn't green enough, even though it was the most environmental council ever. The fact is, once elected, the council has to represent all Pacificans, not just the most vocal enviros or the most opinionated bloggers.
Thank you Tom! Hate those oily, sneaky terms they use. Insulting.
@815 get your head out of the past.
we elected these people. if we can't muster up some trust, then at least show a little courage and let them lead.
Speaking of oil. They just put some oil on the Linda Mar Beach Parking lot today.
8:43
Not when it comes to my money!
Ian, I used to respect your ability to respect all sides of issues. You lost me with your Plater-loving "Close Sharp Park" phase, but I tend to agree with you here.
What? We lose the right to try and keep elected officials honest if we voted for them? Mike O'Neill was my only "candidate". Thank God Pete and Jimmy are gone but I think some councilmembers learned some bad habits from them. They are being kind of sneaky and we have a right toi call them out on it.
Keeping them honest is courageous.
Anonymously second-guessing their every move is cowardly.
949 Says who?
If we don't have a "check and balance" system and no one is watching look what happens.
A 25+ year run by the "gang of no" city councils and a bunch of noobees running the town.
I think Ian's just sore because I criticized Rich Campbell.
Hey Ian, a newsflash mr newsman! We don't have to agree with everything our elected officials do. And speaking out is what makes our system work.
most of the blow-back on this tax is council self-inflicted. One key benefit of holding a public hearing is the public is informed, can comment and council doesn't think it has all the answers. Ducking public debate looks underhanded. But in this situation, a private closed group began organizing 6 months ago; got 2 council members to push an agenda outside of a public hearing; got the city manager to spend public money for a poll the private group signed off on; generated a press release calling a tax a "modernization"; generated a poll question like this--without raising the current 6.5% rate... ( forgetting to explain the utilities covered would be expanded 3x)
None of this nonsense would have come out of a public hearing. When council pulls these stunts by themselves, they create hash and political double talk designed to lead voters to one pre-determined conclusion, an approved tax increase.
But not this time.
Nihart and Stone strike again! Their fingerprints are all over this thing. Kind of funny to find the champions of open government don't practice what they preach. They're developing an obvious disdain for the public process. It will backfire and hurt the very people they're using as campaign props...the needy, kids, seniors.
Anon 843 said "get your head out of the past.
we elected these people. if we can't muster up some trust, then at least show a little courage and let them lead."
Hey, they have to earn my trust back after taking outsourcing off the table and appointing Campbell back they have lost a lot of credibility. And now the sneaky way they are going about this UUT tax I trust them as much as John Curtis in a Blimpy's.
1:03
The converstation between Mary Ann and Lenny went like this.
Mary Ann: Go along with me Lenny.
Lenny: umm Say what.
Mary Ann: places Lenny in sleeper hold.
Lenny: Uncle I am for your tax.
Yeah, we've all been burned by the people we elect. They start out fine and then they get arrogant. They start taking shortcuts. A little power brings out their natural tendencies, not all of which are good for us.
Yeah, that's who I trust for my information... Cowardly anonymi tossing around paranoid accusations without a single shred of proof.
@109 yeah, Campbell. our new council kissing up to the enviros because they need their support and they got it during the last election. big surprise! expect a lot of decisions to go hippy under the consensus and compromise disguise.
They know exactly how to sell this thing to the public and they will. And we're paying for the consultants that will make it happen. They'll appeal to people's fears. Public safety, social programs. It's an off-year election with low-turnout. Seniors vote in those and members of the committee will bring along their particular demographics--library crowd, schools, yuppies, non-profit crowd, etc. etc. All they need is a simple majority. Done deal.
Instead of just complaining about this we'd better anticipate it passes and put effort into getting that sunset clause added to the ballot language or this will be a FOREVER TAX. And of course vote Hell No!
Excellent article over on Riptide re this UUT measure. Lays it all out for ya! Don't know who wrote it, but very well done. Hutch gave it a thumb's up. A reprint here would help focus the energy on the problem.
voter turn out nov 2013 election under 20%. Just called county elections office. Less than 20% of voters could approve this tax even though they clearly do not represent the majority of the town.
I'm not anonymous, ANONYMOUS 1:35. What a laugh. Want to tell me to my face I'm a coward? Or use your real name? Didn't think so.
On a personal level, I am still evaluating this situation but I can say four small businesses have already contacted me to ask me to vote no if the Chamber of Commerce Board takes a vote. Their rational was they are sole proprietors, have already been hit with a fire inspection fee of $150, an increased alarm fee, a rent increase of 2% beginning January 13,increase costs in their operating products and will be under the business cap of $500 so will have no relief on this tax whatsoever. One also has two lines coming into their home for the phone and fax so that is an additional charge.
I believe Ms. Porter. This is not a business friendly tax.
The whole thing stinks. Council, all 2 of them, stayed below the radar on this for many months. Plotting and planning and making sure there would be very little opportunity for the public to give their opinions. The public is such a bother! In fact, even before putting the thing on an agenda, they obligated public funds to a pollster to gather public opinion in a carefully designed, loaded phone poll. I'd love to know when they approved that expenditure. They started recruiting leadership for a tax measure campaign many months ago.
I can fully understand why they were careful. Had to get their ducks in row--announce a balanced budget, announce their approval rating (from the very same loaded poll), time it for a fast run-up to an off-year election with notoriously low turn-out, and then we have that parade of puppets the other night. Better than Broadway!
I posted that comment, Hutch, and I (obviously, I thought) wasn't talking about you, so calm down with the grammar school challenges.
It's interesting that you identify with "paranoid accusations without a single shred of proof" though.
So most businesses are against it, Fix Pacifica is mostly against it. Even the hippies are against it. Most seniors don't like more taxes either. I think they just wasted $30,000 without asking us. How about we put an initiative on the ballot that they have to discuss crap like this with the public before they squander our money on it?
I remember how steaming mad council was when they did not get the sales tax increase. Julie, was going to blow gasket.
The beauty of the scheme from council's view, is that seniors can opt out of this new UUT measure just like they don't have to pay the current UUT. They can vote for it and choose not to pay it.
Guess who can be counted to vote in nearly every election? Seniors. Guess who is particularly vulnerable to scary crime wave stories and threats to social programs like Meals on Wheels? Seniors.
You may have caught a whiff of the campaign strategy Monday night with the parade of speakers in support of this tax. Crime and famine, right around the corner. Just a question of which one gets us first.
Tom C said, "...As an aside I really hate the term modernize we are talking about expanding the scope of the tax not putting on a new coat of paint. It's past time for elected officials to stop treating the voters like a bunch of dummies."
The term modernization is used throughout the country when reviewing UUT measures. The term recognizesthat telecomunications in this day and age is a significant "utility", and needs to include all of the different ways we now communicate. Agree it's strange, but get it.
Anonymous 12:36pm said "most of the blow-back on this tax is council self-inflicted. One key benefit of holding a public hearing is the public is informed, can comment and council doesn't think it has all the answers. Ducking public debate looks underhanded. But in this situation, a private closed group began organizing 6 months ago; got 2 council members to push an agenda outside of a public hearing; got the city manager to spend public money for a poll the private group signed off on; generated a press release calling a tax a "modernization"; generated a poll question like this--without raising the current 6.5% rate... ( forgetting to explain the utilities covered would be expanded 3x)
None of this nonsense would have come out of a public hearing. When council pulls these stunts by themselves, they create hash and political double talk designed to lead voters to one pre-determined conclusion, an approved tax increase. But not this time."
What "ducking of public debate"? The subject of a revenue generating measure has been discussed for years in Pacifica. Included in the Financing City Services Task Force recommendations, part of ongoing city budget conversations, conversed here on these blogs. Council is also available for citizens to speak to. Did you show up on Monday at the council meeting? Perfect time for public comment. People are tired of the talk and are looking for action to move the city forward. The changes to the UUT are a way to do this and provide a bridge while other projects in the city (Beach Blvd., Palmetto) have time for fruition.
So most businesses are against it, Fix Pacifica is mostly against it. Even the hippies are against it. Most seniors don't like more taxes either. I think they just wasted $30,000 without asking us. How about we put an initiative on the ballot that they have to discuss crap like this with the public before they squander our money on it?June 27, 2013 at 8:06 PM
Mostly see long time critics of any action (other than huge development) / bloggers on Fix Pacifica as being against this. Seniors and a cross section of voters were included in the polling. As seen, actual data is showing a very high percentage of support.
8:59
Modernize has been used and abused as much around town as this gem.
"state of the art"
@859 In this particular usage the term modernization recognizes that our elected officials have found yet another way to stick us with the bill.
And they're starting to get smug about it.
July 4th just around the corner.
Time for another revolution?
Local in scope. Modernize!
946 And in an amazing coincidence, they both stink!
@906 Your nose is going to grow.
July 8 7PM Council meeting. UUT vote is on the agenda. You snooze, you lose. Forever..or until they decide to add cable and God knows what else to this tax.
10:48
What is $50 or so million between friends right?
When we spend the $50 or so million to fix the plant it will be even more state of the art.
9:12 said "actual data is showing a very high percentage of support"
Oh yes, that phone poll is about as reliable as Vreeland.
You do know that most people see it as a joke right?
912 is a shill. the question is, were they paid with public funds or just the recipient of some real good coaching?
I'd need a 5 year sunset clause and a strong commitment from council to keep city salaries and benefits at current levels for the duration of the tax before I could vote for this. Too much of our city budget is going for salaries as it is. Get it down. I know we don't pay top dollar--far from it, but the pay is adequate, the benefits are phenomenal, and the jobs are filled. And, if this city is so broke that they have to hold up the taxpayers with this repugnant scheme, then a genuine wage-freeze really should be part of the discussion. I don't care what's been done so far. It clearly wasn't enough because here you are, asking for our help again.
1243 I'm on your side, but it's going to take more than dredging up the V-word and such to stop this very well-organized, professionally planned and well-financed campaign. A campaign financed by us with public funds. We're paying for the campaign! What's that do for your sense of outrage?
12:43
The current council are all scrambling around to figure out who is going to be the next "Vreeland"
Pacifica, needs someone like Snowden, or the WikiLeaks ( Assange) page, to start a blog with PacificaLeaks. Go into city hall and sniff around and turn the place upside down if they have too.
Rats don't jump off a ship for no good reason.
@310 Do you really expect them to have a clue?
Pretty clear to me exactly who she is.
Politicians. Just because they (a couple of them anyway and their puppet) have a maybe solution--if they can just sell it to the public--they think it's ok to use just about any trick in their political box-of-tricks to make the sale. And we're paying for the box. It's not ok. It's never been ok. You deserve to get your whatsits caught in the wringer for this one.
Headline today, "State gas tax rises 3.5 cents Monday, giving California the highest in the nation."
How much money does the public sector think we have? I don't see how asking 40,000 people who are poorer than you to pay more taxes to keep you in your elevated lifestyles can be considered anything but an abuse of power. It's simply abusive.
You (senior staff, council) need to calm the hell down and take some real meaningful pay cuts. You've been chasing this tax illusion for 4 years when all you had to do is what the rest of the planet did, take a modest pay cut to help everyone out.
So much wasted time, effort and money.
Quit whining and buy a Prius Hybrid. 50 mph+
Todd
Lots of people in town make far more then city staff. Lots of Genentech, Google and Facebook money out there.
@626 Lots do, lots don't. The city payroll takes up too large a percent of the dwindling city budget, particularly when we have yet to begin building that mythic economy. Shall we exist as a city merely to meet the payroll? How long do we pretend?
I don't begrudge city employees their salaries or benefits, although I do fancy the short commute so many of them enjoy. Plenty of good candidates for any opening because these are excellent jobs. My issue is that no real salary cuts have been made, even in response to the Great Recession. That's quite remarkable and very short-sighted. Again, how long do we pretend?
The near certainty that money from this falsely-advertised new tax will go towards city payroll guarantees my household of 5 voters (no seniors to scare, here) will be voting NO.
"Plenty of good candidates for any opening because these are excellent jobs."
Yes, all that matters is whether people will apply for the jobs. Let's ignore those pesky detals, like actual qualifications.
Todd, no matter how many times you prance around on you one-trick-pony, there are actually multiple ways to solve this crisis, which created in no small part by your band of NIMBYs opposing any revenue-producing project. Some of them actually make economic sense, unlike your simplistic proposals.
I don't see how asking 40,000 people who are poorer than you to pay more taxes to keep you in your elevated lifestyles can be considered anything but an abuse of power. It's simply abusive.
His post clearly states that $40,000 people make less then city staff!
756 Utter rubbish! The jobs are quickly filled at salaries that have been for many, many years well below those paid by nearly all other SMC cities. No one's been complaining about the quality of employees or the quality of candidates. Ask Council.
@801 So, what are those alternatives to solve the crisis? Seriously. I think Todd is sincere, but his solution is really about having other people pay for his vision of Pacifica, after he got the vision.
Got anything other than fixed-term revenue schemes like the proposed UUT?
Yes! Let's grab some tweaker off the street, hand him a gun, and let him police our streets! Or drive our fire trucks! Or try and resuscitate our grandmother!
Awesome ideas!
756 Qualifications? No biggie in Pacifica. Didn't we eliminate the jobs of some tree trimmrrs and shazaam! turn them into higher-paid WWTP workers? Yeah, I think so. So much for qualifications.
Right, 9:00, that's asinine... So now you're saying that's a good thing?!?
@847 Well then get off your butt and apply for the job, but don't you be touching my grandma!
8:38, there are multiple options in the short term (reduction in salary, outsource police, eliminate positions, UUT, etc.), but please ask your buddy Todd what his long-term solution is. It absolutely needs to focus on the kind of economic development that he and others have obstructed at every turn, leading to our current miserable state, but I doubt that he would agree.
No 913, I'm saying this city has made notable exceptions and probably will again. They all do.
926 you're talking out of both sides of your mouth and make no sense.
Anonymous 11:24am said...
"July 8 7PM Council meeting. UUT vote is on the agenda. You snooze, you lose. Forever..or until they decide to add cable and God knows what else to this tax."
No. Please be factual. Council was pretty clear that they did NOT intend to add cable or other items to the measure.
Thx 838, but I'll pass on covering well-traveled ground with Todd. Of your four short-term solutions, there's no political will for the first and second, none at all, and that's unfortunate. I think we will all come to regret failing to pursue outsourcing the police. We also have just about missed the window for cutting salaries--not that council ever would. Eliminating jobs? The city has been doing that for at least 2 years through attrition and consolidation. We still spend the same on payroll so what's the point? Any deeper cuts will effect service. Pay more to get less. The UUT? On the way.
Long term solutions are going to be very long term. Ten years of UUT may not be enough to bridge the gap. Lots of reasons. Scarce private development money, the same old red tape, shortage of land for those big city-changing projects, and being outside the growth hot zone.
Good thing us taxpayers are still around.
Anonymous 5:56pm said...
"Politicians. Just because they (a couple of them anyway and their puppet) have a maybe solution--if they can just sell it to the public--they think it's ok to use just about any trick in their political box-of-tricks to make the sale. And we're paying for the box. It's not ok. It's never been ok. You deserve to get your whatsits caught in the wringer for this one."
Don't think you are paying attention. Support for this measure is strong throughout many different groups in the city -- did you see who spoke up on Monday? This is not about the "politicians" trying to sneak something by us. It's many of the citizen's of the City of Pacifica wanting to move forward. People that are tired of the negativity of many that post here on "Fix Pacifica" who actually have no tangible plan for how to move ahead.
Anonymous at 8:20pm said...
"I remember how steaming mad council was when they did not get the sales tax increase. Julie, was going to blow gasket."
Come into the present friend. Julie hasn't been on council for a long time.
Anonymous 12:36pm said "most of the blow-back on this tax is council self-inflicted. One key benefit of holding a public hearing is the public is informed, can comment and council doesn't think it has all the answers. Ducking public debate looks underhanded. But in this situation, a private closed group began organizing 6 months ago; got 2 council members to push an agenda outside of a public hearing; got the city manager to spend public money for a poll the private group signed off on; generated a press release calling a tax a "modernization"; generated a poll question like this--without raising the current 6.5% rate... ( forgetting to explain the utilities covered would be expanded 3x)
None of this nonsense would have come out of a public hearing. When council pulls these stunts by themselves, they create hash and political double talk designed to lead voters to one pre-determined conclusion, an approved tax increase. But not this time."
What better public forum / "hearing" is there than putting this to a vote of Pacifica citizens? About time this moved forward to have a vote.
Anonymous 8:08pm said...
"I don't see how asking 40,000 people who are poorer than you to pay more taxes to keep you in your elevated lifestyles can be considered anything but an abuse of power. It's simply abusive."
Whoa folks. City Council has not imposed a tax on anyone. The conversation is about putting the question in front of Pacifica voters. Pacifica voters will decide what they want for the City. How can asking people to vote for what they want be an "abuse of power"? Seems the exact opposite.
Chicken Little 10:02, it sounds lie your solution is to give up and whine that "the sky is falling". Great plan.
958 it happens. do ya think I've got a career in local politics?
@959 You offering guarantees?
You mean not at this, which is what the post says. If this addition to the UUT passes in the form currently proposed, how could anyone know what changes might be
made down the road? It doesn't even have a sunset on it yet.
Road, hell & good intentions.
The UUT HQ late shift has reported in.
1015 My solution and yours are probably the same...we pay. We didn't develop, we didn't outsource, we didn't cut wages. We pay. You want to turn it into happy talk, go for it!
1003 I was there. It was quite a show.
10:14 SAid "Whoa folks. City Council has not imposed a tax on anyone"
Really? Really" Have we not already endured a $600+ sewer tax, UUT tax, increased fees, and many other taxes???
The comments about Cable TV prompted a little research. Friends in the East Bay pay UUT that recently began to include their Cable TV service. A quick look for what it's worth.
The list of utilities that can be taxed includes:
cell phone and landlines, texting
cable TV
electricity
water
sewer
gas
sanitation
As you know, we are already have a UUT on some of these.
Tax rate is set by the city and can be from 1-11%. Requires a public vote to amend or begin. Can be ended by public vote or sunset clause.
About 150 CA cities and a few counties use a UUT to provide steady local revenue. The counties are taxing unincorporated areas. More than half include Cable TV. The number of cities with UUTs has grown as state funding has been cut. Over $2 Billion dollars per year is collected for cities through UUTs.
The tax is collected by the relevant utility provider and remitted monthly to the city.
A UUT may be imposed as a special tax and earmarked for a specific purpose, or a general tax to be used for a variety of city service needs at the discretion of the city council. Of course, one method may require a larger majority to pass than the other. I don't know for sure, but that's an important bit of info to pin down.
A sunset is often part of the deal. They vary widely.
1003 You say stop the negativity. I say get your hands out of my pocket and I will. Deal?
Todd
Regarding Todd's, statement on everyone in town makes less then city staff. Here you go I dug this up this morning.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP03
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2011 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
Total households
14,215 +/-300 14,215 (X)
Less than $10,000
327 +/-107 2.3% +/-0.7
$10,000 to $14,999
280 +/-92 2.0% +/-0.7
$15,000 to $24,999
583 +/-145 4.1% +/-1.0
$25,000 to $34,999
935 +/-180 6.6% +/-1.2
$35,000 to $49,999
1,033 +/-251 7.3% +/-1.8
$50,000 to $74,999
2,391 +/-303 16.8% +/-2.1
$75,000 to $99,999
2,159 +/-262 15.2% +/-1.8
$100,000 to $149,999
3,388 +/-295 23.8% +/-2.0
$150,000 to $199,999
1,616 +/-240 11.4% +/-1.7
$200,000 or more
1,503 +/-201 10.6% +/-1.5
Median household income (dollars)
93,469 +/-3,497 (X) (X)
Mean household income (dollars)
110,471 +/-3,960 (X) (X)
Nice to see the YesonUUTtaxanons show themselves.
People are just trying to figure out a way for the city to function after decades of NIMBYs like Todd obstructing much-needed development.
Todd
I want you and your "Gang Of No" to show a tiny bit of credibilty and admit.
You ruined the city.
6:09 How dare you use facts versus the much-more-scientific approach of pulling random numbers out of one's keister.
Nice try 6:09
It goes to figure that most households have at least two adults
Median household income $90,472
Average household size 2.65
Average income per adult is more like $45,000 per year
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Pacifica.htm
I know, I know "take a statistics class".
9:01
3 Hail Mary's and can my slate be clean again?
wow according to 6:09's own stats over 4000 Pacifica households (average size 2.65 people) are scraping by on less than $50,000. That's $18,000 per person. How do you think your added tax will affect these poor people? Do you think it's fair that they should be asked to take food out of their families mouths so that some top city workers can continue to make almost $18,000 per month? Answer me that.
With all the stoners in town:
How bout a pot tax?
Tax the faux-enviro NOBIES.
If they want to live in a run-down hovel with happy frogs, birds and snakes, they should pay for it.
Anonymous said...1:31pm
"912 is a shill. the question is, were they paid with public funds or just the recipient of some real good coaching?"
What does this comment mean? Anyone that doesn't have usual negative perspective of bloggers on this site is a shill? Wasn't paid with public funds nor did I receive "real good coaching". Can think for myself, thanks.
Anonymous 2:28pm said...
"1243 I'm on your side, but it's going to take more than dredging up the V-word and such to stop this very well-organized, professionally planned and well-financed campaign. A campaign financed by us with public funds. We're paying for the campaign! What's that do for your sense of outrage?"
No, actually the city won't be paying for the "campaign". The city needs to be engaged at this time as it requires their action to have the measure placed on the ballot. After that takes place no city monies will be spent.
Yes it is expensive to live in the Bay Area, but with 10-15 or $20,000 a month you could rent a McMansion on Pedro point, lease a Ferrari and fly on private jets to Paris for lunch. It's a little much. These government workers have gotten way out of hand and now you want us to maintain their lifestyle? All government unions should be outlawed. Bart workers should not have the right to strike and paralyze the entire region because they are unhappy they're average wage is $70,000. I hope to God the pensions explode in their faces and we will be forced to to reorganize the whole mess so they go on SSI. I don't care if it's the going rate. The going rate is too high that's why cities are filing chapter 11. The whole thing is ridiculous to have elected officials deciding what compensation a big block of voters gets. It doesn't work and needs to be fixed. In the mean time don't ask me to pay another dime for these spoiled union crybabies.
"It goes to figure that most households have at least two adults"
No it doesn't. Try about 1.3 or 1.4.
@1231 You write in that same doublespeak used in the UUT Survey. Who can forget? "Without raising the current 6.5% rate, and to fund..."
You say the City won't be paying for the campaign. In actual fact, this City has already spent at least $30,000 of public funds on this UUT campaign, but they now will cool it.
Everything done by Godbe and TBWB for this city is to help run a successful UUT revenue measure campaign.
In their own words, Godbe, "The survey was also designed to...test the influence of supporting and opposing arguments on potential voter support." TBWB "has passed over 100 bond and tax measures...".
This is what they do and Pacifica taxpayers will pay at least $30,000for it.
Here are the numbers on how many seniors Pacifica has.
SEX AND AGE
Total population
37,296 100.0
Under 5 years
2,024 5.4
5 to 9 years
2,074 5.6
10 to 14 years
2,217 5.9
15 to 19 years
2,205 5.9
20 to 24 years
2,047 5.5
25 to 29 years
2,227 6.0
30 to 34 years
2,332 6.3
35 to 39 years
2,587 6.9
40 to 44 years
2,880 7.7
45 to 49 years
3,167 8.5
50 to 54 years
3,328 8.9
55 to 59 years
3,104 8.3
60 to 64 years
2,583 6.9
65 to 69 years
1,501 4.0
70 to 74 years
1,096 2.9
75 to 79 years
820 2.2
80 to 84 years
561 1.5
85 years and over
543 1.5
Median age (years)
41.5 ( X )
Anonymous 12:31 The Committee has already benefited financely by having full access to the polling data and the consultants before the data was released to either the council or the general public.[They received $24,000.00 worth of information gratis] That kind of access is golden and gives the pro UUT faction an unfair advantage. The fact that the Mayor was one of the presenter at the meeting calls into question his objectivity at any Council vote on the UTT.
Even 1.4 adults per household (which is under estimating) would mean the average income in Pacifica is around 65,000 which is far less than 90% of city employees. But every census estimates at least 2 adults per household on average.
1231 So the pathetic story you're peddling is that the city needed to be 'engaged' in this crap and so they spent $30,000 to get the thing on the ballot. What arrogance.
I can't wait to disengage on election day when I vote NO! I'd love to be able to vote to replace both of council's schemers. That day will come.
The obsession with city salaries continues, like obsessions often do. We pay less than nearly all other SMC cities and have for many years. That's a fact. You could make an argument that we can't afford even those salaries, but it's just an argument. This council will never make the kinds of cuts you're dreaming about. Hell, there's no proof any city employee is making less than before. A few may have left, retired, etc. and not been replaced, but payroll has not gone down. And that strategy doesn't address the real problem, doesn't save us a dime. No criticism of city employees , but they sailed through the recession on the wings of the City Council. Smooth ride.
9-4 on a Saturday. Very nice way to pick up some Overtime. 9-4 again on Sunday then double time on Thursday.
It is great to have a very high paying corporate job!
60% of the comments here are from the buffoon who moved to Texas four years ago. He has no connection to Pacifica, yet tries to con readers into believing he's another local resident who's impacted by these tax measures.
What kind of psychological issues must someone be possessed by to spend so much time on this blog, even though he left years ago, and now resides a thousand miles away?
"But every census estimates at least 2 adults per household on average."
I don't see how that can be the case. Most households are only going to have 1 or 2 adults, so I would expect the average to be between 1 and 2. Any number over that would be the total # of people in the house, not adults.
410 Most "very high paying corporate jobs" are exempt from the overtime laws.
Steve There are three Adults in my house currently My daughter,My wife and myself. When my son comes home from South Korea there will be four.
I'm sure there exceptions, Tom, but that wouldn't be the norm.
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households
13,989 100.0
Family households (families) [7]
9,699 69.3
With own children under 18 years
4,034 28.8
Husband-wife family
7,395 52.9
With own children under 18 years
3,078 22.0
Male householder, no wife present
710 5.1
With own children under 18 years
306 2.2
Female householder, no husband present
1,594 11.4
With own children under 18 years
650 4.6
Nonfamily households [7]
4,290 30.7
Householder living alone
3,132 22.4
Male
1,355 9.7
65 years and over
325 2.3
Female
1,777 12.7
65 years and over
774 5.5
Households with individuals under 18 years
4,518 32.3
Households with individuals 65 years and over
3,373 24.1
Average household size
2.65 ( X )
Average family size [7]
3.12 ( X )
What was the question? (X)
Council will "modernize" your cable, dish and anything else they can think of.Just a matter of time, maybe 2-3 years. They are hooked on taxes. The easiest way out..
Second observation: just becsuse folks have income, that does not mean anyone in town wants to take money from their savings and put it in the city surplus. Or a city expenditure no one on Council will reveal anytime before the tax is voted upon.
poop tax=check
phone tax=check
sales tax increase=check
water bill tax=check
cell phone tax=check
land line tax=check
cable tv tax=check
parcel tax=check
school parcel tax=check
pge bill tax=check
Did I forget anything?
Library Bond pending
Anonymous 6:31pm said"poop tax=check phone tax=check sales tax increase=check water bill tax=check
cell phone tax=check land line tax=check cable tv tax=check
parcel tax=check school parcel tax=check pge bill tax=check Did I forget anything?"
Yes. You forgot anything that is meaningful or that would add value to this discussion.
Sanitation services can be included in a UUT. Is it, in Pacifica? Anybody know? The City and Recology get along so well.
Phfft 703, just ask the city how valuable those things are.
3 adults in our household counting our 20 year old.
neighbors that I know: 2 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults 2 adults, 1 adult, 2 adults, 5 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults 1 adult, 2 adults, 2 adults, 3 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults.
I think 2 is the norm.
"Anonymous" at 7:03 PM Yes. You forgot anything that is meaningful or that would add value to this discussion.
Wow either this is a councilmenber or UUT member, do they really think we can't spot them? Who defends a tax on a blog? These people remind me of 1970's undercover cops.
UUT member?!?
WTF does that even mean? Please lay off the sauce, 8:45
Déjà vu all over again.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pacifica-voters-nix-utility-tax-surcharge-3110587.php
1997-07-02 04:00:00 PDT PACIFICA -- PACIFICA - Voters here overwhelmingly defeated a utility tax that was intended to provide $1.2 million a year to help maintain city services at current levels
9:09 sorry I didn't use your proper bureaucratic jargon. Do these people really think we can't spot them?
Anonymous 8:45 said... "Wow either this is a councilmenber or UUT member, do they really think we can't spot them? Who defends a tax on a blog? These people remind me of 1970's undercover cops."
Who defends a tax on a blog? Possibly someone that supports doing something positive for the city versus whining on a blog? ("...1970's undercover cops..." What's that about? Weird.)
@ 9:28 Yeah cause making fake poll phone calls costing $30,000 and trying to manipulate citizens in order to take money out of their pocket is "positive" for the city.
These people are warped.
How do Ervin, O'Neill and Digre feel about being left in the dark? They were Pawns? Left in the dark? But hey, that's how these things work. You're not a rube. Just follow orders and vote for the tax.
2003 - 2004 property taxes $6.2 million
2003 - 2004 general fund revenue $18.8 million
2004 - 2005 property taxes $7.1 million
2004 - 2005 general fund revenue $24.3 million
2005 - 2006 property taxes $7.8 million
2005 - 2006 general fund revenues $25.2 million
2006 - 2007 property taxes $8.7 million
2006 - 2007 general fund revenues $25.4 million
2007 - 2008 property taxes $9.3 million
2007 - 2008 general fund revenues $29.5 million
2008 - 2009 property taxes $9.7 million
2008 - 2009 general fund revenues $25.6 million
2009 - 2010 property taxes $9.9 million
2009 - 2010 general fund revenues $24.9 million
2010 - 2011 property taxes $9.8 million
2010 - 2011 general fund revenues $25.2 million
but keep in mind why 2008 was special . . . that spike in the 07/08 budget was due to selling property ($800,000) and the $3 mil check from CCAG, which also masked the impact of losing the fire assessment. 08 also was when the Big Horn decision took away that $800,000/yr transfer from the sewer fund.
Bray's assertion that the property tax "boom" resulted in higher salaries is false. The city also managed costs by cutting staffing in police and fire almost 30% from 03-08. you know, during this mythical boom.
btw sales tax in 03 was $1.3 mil, TOT $564K
sales tax is still about $1.3 mil, TOT about $900K
so in other words . . . the city council that Bray supported from 2002 - 2010 did not take advantage of the real eatste boom, did not develop a local economy, borrowed money left and right, refinanced the sewer loans to the hilt to afford being able to make the in lieu transfer to the general fund, cut staff by 30% . . . they also nearly tripled the sewer rates.
But let's blame staff for the problems.
Hutch said...
3 adults in our household counting our 20 year old.
neighbors that I know: 2 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults 2 adults, 1 adult, 2 adults, 5 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults 1 adult, 2 adults, 2 adults, 3 adults, 2 adults, 2 adults.
I think 2 is the norm.
June 29, 2013 at 8:30 PM
Hutch, it sounds like you live in an older more established neighborhood where older people(no offense) but retired people still live.
If you look around the apartment complexes and condo complexes around town you will see more kids running around.
My street had zero little kids for awhile. Grade School age. Now the court has 6 kids on the street. Not counting grandkids who come over after school.
The old families move and young families come into neighborhoods.
How do Ervin, O'Neill and Digre feel about being left in the dark?
The same way Sue, Julie and Cal felt when Vreeland and "Sneaky" Pete where running the town.
Anonymous said...
410 Most "very high paying corporate jobs" are exempt from the overtime laws.
June 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Another one with paycheck envy!
It doesn't matter when their wages went up or for what reason. What is a fact is we can't afford to not cut wages. Weather we increase taxes or cut wages or cut services and positions someone's going to suffer. I see it as the least amount of people suffering the least would be to cut wages 5% for people making over 100K which will only effect 80 or so employees. You tax or cut services and you effect 1000's of people.
Look at the police beat. Major crime here is some kids vandalizing some cars. Do we really need 10 officers making over $170,000? Sewer plant workers making $150,000+, Maintenence workers $120,000+. We just can't afford on a little beach town budget.
More crime then you think. If you did your homework and "where in the know" you would know what is going on.
Police and Firemen are very well paid. But in reality who would do that job? Does your job make you make life or death decissions.
Old Italian saying. Dip your tongue in your brain before you talk/post.
I keep reading "just cut wages by 1%, 5% or whatever" to solve the City's problems. Most city workers have Union contracts and have given back some benefits, taken pay cuts or given up cash payouts. The City cannot do any wage cutting without Union agreement.On these large dollar salaries; do you know if overtime is included or is this base pay? Did you also ever think the reason there is not major crime here is because the police are patroling?
Anonymous said...
410 Most "very high paying corporate jobs" are exempt from the overtime laws.
June 29, 2013 at 4:47 PM
Well it's a corporate white collar job. A corporation owns the company vs being a municipal employee.
That is the point I was trying to make.
It really sounds like a lot of people who post are mad at the world due to the fat they are under employed.
"due to the fat they are unemployed." Freudian slip much?
Chris
Do you honestly believe the "gang of no" will admit they cost the city millions of dollars in lost revenue over the last 30+ years.
They are in full on spin cycle, never admiting to doing wrong.
Do you believe they have any shame, morals or ethics?
@708, 215 No, no envy here. The original statement is true, although clearly vulnerable to various interpretations. Overtime can change those wages that might be at the low end for similar jobs elsewhere, into very comfortable wages. Our old friend cafeteria cash has the same effect, although no extra work is performed.
Declining headcounts often create overtime because some jobs must be done. For example, public safety, WWTP, public works. A realistic departmental budget includes some overtime.
The nature of the work being performed determines whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt of the overtime laws. Most city workers are non-exempt and can earn overtime. True management or professional positions are exempt.
City Council has been moving towards more taxes for a couple years. Get the ducks in a row, play some games, spin some numbers, bring in the pros, and then go for it.
Don't like their plan and I don't trust them. This tax will never end and it will grow. In 25+ years here, we've seen that taxes are about the only thing that does grow in Pacifica.
Moving forward? Who doesn't want to? Of course, this tax isn't moving us forward. It's in lieu of the one thing that would move us forward, growth, and, as always, it's a poor substitute.
Is Pacifica's collapse imminent? Of course not. I'm willing to roll the dice, vote no, and see where it takes us. Put this tax on the back burner and see if we can't do better. Voting no.
Chris Union contracts are renegotiated every day. But we have to ask for real concessions in order to get them. Every year we hear "but they have contracts" and never do we really get tough. We haven't been asking enough. Those insignificant givebacks of some holidays etc don't amount to squat.
"Millbrae employees helped shoulder the burden by accepting a 4.3 percent to 5 percent reduction in their salary."
Pacifica's crime rate has always been pretty low. Even when or PD WAS really the lowest paid. Sure we need good people, but do we need 11 police Captains and Sergeants making from 160K to 190K in pay and benefits? We can not afford it.
Too many chiefs?
City employee salaries cannot remain off limits in any discussion of this proposed tax. Salaries and benefits are much too large a part of the city budget to be ignored, for any reason. No real cuts have been made. We spend as much as ever. For fewer people. That's unsustainable for a city charged with providing services to nearly 40,000 residents.
In cities where meaningful wage concessions have been won from the unions, and in the shell-game of union contracts a goal of 5% would be meaningful, the key ingredient has been the City Council's political will to really cut wages. A political will pushed along by critical budget woes and unrelenting public pressure. The City Councils of those cities wanted those significant wage cuts and went after them. They went after a level of cuts that would actually reduce their annual payroll expenditure, unlike Pacifica. Our City Council lacks the political will to do this. They just don't have it.
Until that changes, nothing changes. Giving them more tax dollars sure won't help. Don't do it!
"Union contracts are renegotiated every day"
Said by someone who has no clue what a contract is.
So do you people boycott companies cause the CEO's make too much money?
Spin cycle blaming it on city employees. Who gave them these contracts. City Council.
Throw blame where it belongs.
Our council not only "doesn't have the will" to cut their friends and co-workers wages, they actually apologized when they did make a meager meaningless cut last time. I believe one of them promised there woul;d be no more cuts.
416 Amen! Giving the city more tax dollars now will only perpetuate the mess, not solve it. Don't open that door. And if any foolish councilmember promised no more cuts after those meager sham cuts, that's just too bad!
Not blaming city employees for their pay. The contracts were entered into willingly by a string of councils, including this one. And I know with certainty they do not make more than employees of other SMC cities. Nonetheless, they are making more than this city can afford to pay. Our payroll costs have not declined.
Just because it's public money being used, rather than shareholder's, shouldn't change the solution to the problem. No sacred cows. Cut wages across the board before you try to hold-up the taxpayers for more money.
436 You've got a point. City Council did it and this City Council can un-do it. As a taxpayer, I'd gladly relinquish the #1 spot on this Council's go-to list for cash. I'm there if you need me, but if you do your job, you won't have to ask as often.
Many a company has refused to lower prices to make some money and ended up closing the doors.
Try explaining to the City Council that the City must be run like a company. Lean and mean when times are bad and you can spend a little more when times are good.
@436 Blame? Really? That's the problem. We worry about blame instead of solving the problem. And that allows us to be unduly-influenced by those who present themselves as our saviors. Like our new, tax and spend council.
The problem is we're spending too much on payroll and we expect no new revenue. Solutions seem to be, hit up the taxpayers again or really cut salaries. That's about it, isn't it. Realistically, those are the choices. Doesn't require a savior. Common sense and a backbone would do it.
Cut union salaries when there are taxpayers out there to foot the bill? Oh the horror! The very idea offends council's closet hippie/yuppie sensibilities. I think even O'Neill will be dragged into the clown car on this one. Always a possibility that things could be a lot worse than we're being told. Can't wait for Council's CYA comments and their vote.
"Pacifica's crime rate has always been pretty low"
There's nothing worth stealing here.
Anonymous said...
"So do you people boycott companies cause the CEO's make too much money? "
Yes and so do you. If the product is too expensive compared to value you don't buy it.
Nobody is "blaming" employees. But we still need to reduce costs, wages, benefits. Not stick it to the people.
Every city is cutting big. Why not us?
The guy with the multiple personality disorder who moved to Texas four years ago is sure busy tonight. He's posting comments, and then pretends to be someone else in order to respond to his own comments.
Post a Comment