Pacifica Economic Development Plan Draft Report June 10, 2013, prepared by Wahlstrom & Associates, in association with Susan Barnes Consulting. The report is currently posted on the City website, and was the basis for the Wahlstrom and Barnes presentation, Item 10, at the City Council meeting 9/23/13. The Report was accepted by City Council as an opinion reference. 61 pdf pages.
| Late, but I can wake up |
| Never |
2. A Snapshot of Pacifica's Economy - Pacifica has a very small economy with approximately 39,000 residents and 21,000 employed workers, of which 18,000 leave town five days per week to commute to other employment centers. Local employers generate only 4,400 jobs, of which 2,000 commute into Pacifica from out of town. This means that the City’s population shrinks to 23,000 people during the workdays, which greatly reduces the capacity to populate restaurants and purchase services and retail products at local business establishments.
Approximately 530 private sector employers are located in Pacifica, who generate 4,390 jobs. Government and non-profit employers supplement the jobs generated by private employers (See Figure 1). Relatively low wage retail and hospitality establishments generate nearly 40 percent of the local jobs. Retail jobs are supported by local spending and leisure and hospitality jobs are dependent on weekend tourism spending. Other significant economic sectors that generate good paying jobs include health and private education services (840 jobs), professional and business services (560 jobs) and construction (530 jobs). (Page 7).
Pacifica’s population growth rate is stagnant as a result of the large amount of open space and the community’s resistance to approving new housing starts. The growth rates are very similar to the fully built out Daly City and much slower than other San Mateo County communities where land, available commercial space, and increased density are possible." (Pages 9, 10).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
42 comments:
How much did we pay these consultants to state the obvious and often repeated truth about Pacifica? Council really should be careful. This kind of free-spending makes them look absurd and dishonest when they balk over spending $20,000 on plover fencing. I oppose the plover corral, but this council looks like liars when they hide behind fiscal responsibility only when it suits them. There are better reasons not to spend the money, but those would require a backbone.
Agree anon 542, or they want to cut funding for the Resource Center but they waste 2 million on consultants. Or spend $55,000 to raise our taxes.
Or that we pay our cops more than Oakland to start.
"Pacifica’s population growth rate is stagnant" This is one of our biggest problems. We have kept about the same population for over 30 years. SF added 10,000 housing units since around 2007. Pacifica added maybe 50. You can not survive as a city that way.
Added population not only means more property tax buy also more sales tax, more business and more businesses. More jobs, less unemployment and crime. More money for services and infrastructure.
We have to allow some growth.
Some folks over on Riptide including John Mayburry wrongly believe added housing costs more in services than what it generates from taxes. This theory does not hold up in the Bay Area where property taxes are through the roof.
Even with higher home values and property tax revenue, we'd be lucky to break even on housing vs. the cost of all services. Peninsula cities can tell you all about it. If all you've got is housing, you die a slow death. Plus, there's no easy, viable place to put any kind of big bucks large development so we're talking small numbers of in-fill housing. We need it badly, but it's not the golden goose. Re-inventing and expanding our established shopping areas of Pacific Manor and Linda Mar would provide sales tax revenue and jobs without running afoul of the anti-growth element that pops up whenever a scrap of undeveloped land is involved. It also would change the image of this dump. This city is clueless in making this kind of upgrade happen. Let's just hope that the wonderfully greedy landlords see the need and potential soon. It happens all the time in other cities. Of course, Pacifica can screw this up, too. Poop pit across from Linda Mar Center? An astoundingly moronic idea even by Pacifica City Council standards. It's a nail in the coffin and all 5 are running around with hammers.
The housing market has slowed down for two reasons.
1. Interest rates are up over 1.375%.
2. Lack of inventory.
Even during 2003-2007 home prices surged an Pacifica was still broke and run down.
Prices reached record levels. Park Pacifica reached $1,000,000 and Linda Mar ranchers hit $775,000.
Property tax is not the only revenue generated by new additional housing and increased population. Construction jobs, increased retail sales, more retail jobs, sales tax, more businesses and increased business etc.. Also rents become more affordable & schools have more funding.
Show me one shred of credible evidence that added housing ON THE PENINSULA (or similar taxed area) costs more in services than the taxes it generates.
It may be true in some podunk midwest or Texas town but not in one of the richest county's in the US.
This is a myth perpetrated by the NIMBY's as fact. I asked John Mayburry to prove it and haven't heard back.
Let's just hope that the wonderfully greedy landlords see the need and potential soon. It happens all the time in other cities.
Greedy landlords. You obviously do not understand Market rents.
Spoken like a true liberal!
802 You obviously don't understand English or maybe you're a little twitchy on the subject of landlords? When I said wonderfully,
I meant that the landlord's greed would be a wonderful thing because it would lead to an upgrade of the property. That would be a wonderful thing for Pacifica. If there is the potential to make more money by improving the shopping center, and the landlord ignores or misses the chance, it's probably not so wonderful for Pacifica. No need to trot out your old standby "market rent" for me.
Hutch, again, if all you've got is housing, you die a slow death. When you've been made as land-poor as Pacifica, IMHO, they come, they spend, they go home, is a better business model than they live here.
We just don't have the developable land to build a balanced community with lots of housing and the real revenue producers, business. Choices have to be made. In-fill housing, fine, but save the larger scraps for business, particularly visitor serving businesses like hotels.
Show me one shred of credible evidence that adding housing here does NOT cost more in services than the taxes it generates. Show how taxes and cost of living are so different here that the principles established in several studies in other areas that housing does not pay its way in cost of services do not apply here.
Yes converting farm land to housing tracts is not a big money maker because you lose the farmers property tax. That's not the case in Pacifica. The burden of proof is on those who say added housing does not work out to more money.
10:06
Obamacare covers previously undiagnosed mendical conditions.
No, the burden of proof is on those who say that Pacifica is different from other cities where research has shown that housing does not pay its way in cost of services. If there are studies that show this elsewhere, then to disprove that the same principle applies here, there needs to be another study showing that. Just anybody's assertion that things are different here does not qualify as disproof of the principle that has been shown in other studies.
1109 Oh, not that again. Housing pays, housing doesn't pay? Endless, mindless yipyap about scraps. Typical Pacifica. Typical. Pacifica is rundown and destitute because of bad land use decisions that turned over vast acreage to the feds aka GGNRA. Made it all exempt from state and local taxes. 60% of property in Pacifica earns no income for Pacifica and never will. And the tourists we were told to expect? They haven't shown up yet because we're not that special when compared to the neighbors. If even half of that land had been developed with a balance of homes and businesses, this would be a viable, attractive city. Instead, we are a stain on the scenery, arguing over scraps, trapped by horrendous land use and planning decisions. Our inevitable conversion to a tax and spend economy will continue. It has to. And just look around at what your taxes have bought. Such splendor.
They come, they spend, they go home. I like the idea. We need business, fast, unless we want to pay more and more for our little chunk of paradise. Or we can just keep raising taxes. More and more people are getting comfortable with that idea. Resigned to it being the only way. Scary.
1109 Not that it's a factor in Pacifica, but a lot of farm land is tax-exempt through the Williamson Act. There was a federal subsidy to counties, I think, that made up in part for that lost revenue. I believe the subsidies ended or were suspended during the recession.
I'm still waiting for a credible study. You guys say this is a proven fact. Lets see proof.
1202, there is a difference in those rural, other State area studies, and our urban California local metropolitan economy. Besides, the cost of housing per capita here is higher than there (farms vs urban living). Our per capita income is higher, and so are our fees and taxes. Comparison rural apples to urban baseballs.
"More open space, the higher the property values?" Sure, maybe if this city were more like the rural towns of Woodside or Los Altos Hills. But the stream of income to our city economy is urban, and amounts to about the same (maybe less) than that of East Palo Alto.
Of course, you or someone else could request the City hire a consultant to make the obvious comparison in terms NIMBY land could or would understand and accept. Now that's an idea.
Are ya mad, Meeh? Don't even joke about a consultant. You know this council loves consultants more than life itself. Why the very idea of retaining a consultant sets their hearts aflutter. And we're not talking A-fib here. Council can really flutter.
Ms. Meeh, what's that mean, "But the stream of income to our city economy is urban...".
Stockton went batshit crazy for housing. Sure didn't save them.
120, "stream of income to our city". Fiscal year city revenue from various sources. A stream of income is an estimated expectation of reliable revenue to fund our city needs. Also see Income stream.
The battle cry of the gang of no.
1. Traffic
2. Housing doesn't give the city any money. They forget the sewer tax. A new home built in Pacifica should sell for around a million. That works out to about $15,000 in property tax.
I don't have the property tax bill in front of me, but I am sure that will more than cover the households burden to the city.
The gang of no has zero shame and credibility.
158 You're like a beacon of genius, illuminating all. Seriously, not. As inadequate as it's been made to be for the purpose for which it was intended, no Pacifica homeowner ever forgets the sewer tax. The rest is all just you putting stuff in your little boxes with labels so you can handle it.
Yes, of course, Ms. Meeh. The part that caught my attention was your use of the word urban. How is an income stream, urban?
1:22
Stockton has a commercial base.
Stockton was pretty much ground zero for the perfect storm of a housing price collapse.
Read and learn.
158 As we have discovered, it doesn't even cover the sewer cost.
Which one is better for a city with limited development space and an infrastructure so broken and overburdened it requires massive bonds? Happy realtors or lots of sales tax and jobs from a vibrant business community? We should be working to add in-fill housing and devote every other space to business, preferably hotels and retail. Try to achieve balance.
Take a break from being pissy. Check out Bray's SharkCar on Riptide.
@1138 I am happy for you. That twitch of yours is noticeable. Even on here.
329 Read, learn? Yes, good advice, but YOU need to understand what you've read.
@329 Yup, Stockton had a commercial base, a very healthy and diversified base, and still too much housing took them down. The bills for providing city and school services to all those households kept on coming and growing while residents lost their ability to contribute to the city economy. Stockton is probably a worst case CA scenario, but even without adding new housing, Pacifica has the same issue. We are unable to meet the unchecked rising cost of city services without new taxes, bonds, borrowing, cuts to programs and services. We know what housing does and without lots of revenue-creating business, it's never enough.
3:32
You must have been the yahoo bitching about the greedy landlords above. Obviously you never paid a tax bill in your life.
Sewer tax is a seperate charge on the county tax bill, in some cases the sewer tax is even higher than the prop 13 tax.
Next your going to whine about prop 13.
Hutch
This is another of the many many lies of the gang of now
1. we have too much traffic
2. we don't have enough traffic
3. your going to pave paradise
4. your going to turn pacifica into daly city
5. your going to pave the whole city and built on every piece of dirt
waaa
611/613 Rock bottom. Put your shovel down.
Oh wait this battle cry.
Your going to build a whole city in the quarry.
This is how Pacifica lives, not in Mcmansions
OK, I'll bite on housing paying its way. Not that housing opponents, who live in houses, care. Pacifica is chronically broke. 50% of the town is government owned open space. Pays zero property tax. Now I argue the open space hikers don't do much for the town's economy. If they contributed, we would be flush. We are not. Therefore, open space while pretty, does not offer much if any revenue.
50% of the roughly $22M city budget is from property tax (that's $11M) . Because I don't know the split between housing and commercial property tax generation, let's just say for the sake of easy math, half the property tax is from houses. (14,000 houses in town plus or minus) So maybe $5M plus of the $22M city budget comes from houses
So, are we better off with house property tax of $5M in the budget or without? Want this town to be really broke--ignore or suppress home values. Or increase revenue--encourage remodeling or even new homes! And Pacifica gets only about 18% of the full property tax bill per house; rest goes to all sorts of agencies.
Now take my example. I just bought a resale house. I pay top Prop 13 reassessment dollar--$10,000 a year. I also pay all the other assessments you folks have either voted into existence or tolerated over the years. My house has fire sprinklers. I have pretty good health insurance that pays for ambulances. Therefore, I don't expect to be a drag on fire services. I don't party and have a very attentive german shepard.. I don't expect to use the cops. If I do use the cops, it will certainly not be at the level of some of the bangers described in the newspaper...
If I use city recreation services, I pay the fee. If I remodel, I pay the planning and inspection fee. If I use the library, the part of my property tax the city doesn't get goes to the county to pay for the library. My kids in school are paid for by--yes my property taxes--and the taxes I kick into the state. Oh, I also support the schools through publicly voted parcel assessments based on my property value.
Now, tell me I don't pay my own way? Maybe I'm carrying some of you complainers who sit in houses paying minimal property taxes Want to step up to $10K annual property taxes? Every new home and home resale pays more than you. You don't pay your way..sit down.
Additional housing units may or may not cover the costs of providing services to those new residents. But one thing is for sure: housing turnover will surely provide a healthier budget for the city. Every time we can resell a house and remove a person paying 1970s level taxes with one paying 2013 property taxes, the city will be able to maintain the infrastructure*.
So when you hear your neighbors talking about how bad Pacifica is, please play along and encourage them to put their house up for sale!
(*note: this is why even though some Linda Mar ranchers were indeed selling for $750k, the city wasn't "saved." There were just too few sales and still too many older home owners paying taxes based on decades old values and yet receiving services at today's cost.)
Make that additional housing AND additional retail and you'd have a winner. Housing alone rarely pays for services. San Mateo is an exception that deserves attention. Higher house prices mean higher taxes? Yes, but it's the deep retail base (Hillsdale Shopping Center and more) that allows residents and visitors to contribute to the economy every day. Pacifica is out of balance. No retail to speak of--skimpy selection. Our retail dollars and sales tax revenue go to support San Bruno, Colma, Daly City and probably San Mateo. We can't expect a Hillsdale here, but we need more retail and other tax-producers like hotels to begin to balance our present equation let alone sustain significant new housing.
No single type of tax is meant to support a city. It's supposed to be a combination of various taxes.
Yep taxes, fees, assessments, fines, penalties all go to the city. And when you build a new house you get new residents who pays all these which more than pays for the cost of community services.
An increased population is also going to support more retail which creates more jobs, sales tax etc.. We have been stuck at the same 40,000 or less population for 30 years. This is whats killing us. Yes we need more commercial but we really need more housing.
Just like elsewhere, additional housing in Pacifica will pay its way when the residents have something to spend their money on here in Pacifica. Something other than gas and groceries and a coffee from Quik Stop. That's unlikely to happen. Very unlikely. Because of that imbalance, anything more than in-fill housing will make our situation worse. The rest of those fees and fines and crap contribute little, but they do make council look diligent and effective. We may be "stuck" at 40,000 population but when were we ever honestly able to pay for the services for those 40,000? certainly not in the last 20 years. A succession of Councils paid the bills through grants and handouts and for many years by looting the sewer fund and who knows what else. We need sales tax and more TOT to balance this load. Both make a daily difference. Any uptick in property tax from new homes or resales is slow to arrive. Meanwhile, the UUT is gonna save us. Right.
443 Some pay more than their share, others pay less. Bottom line, it's not enough. Probably never has been. Can't keep pace with the cost of services. People don't buy and sell homes that fast. We're going to need more than housing to cover the costs of services even if we don't add one more house in Pacifica.
Post a Comment