By Barbara Arietta
Special to the Pacifica Tribune
It
was a “full house” in the rear Banquet Room of the Sharp Park Golf
Course Restaurant on Saturday morning, October 19th. Upwards of 80
enthusiastic attendees, almost 30 more than the 52 anticipated,
surprisingly appeared at the door to attend the Pacifica-Daly City
Democrats “Great Debate of 2013” , thereby forcing the restaurant to
keep setting up table after table, in order to accommodate the
burgeoning crowd that had come to hear the “No on V” supporters square
off against the “Yes on V” supporters.
And, in keeping with what has
come to be known as true Pacifica fashion, opposing opinions in the room
were flying fast and furious as to whom would be the morning’s debate
winner.
A quick scan of
the audience revealed the presence of members from Pacifica’s City
Council, the Pacifica Resource Center, and the Pacifica Police
Department, in addition to representatives from Pacifica’s business
community, Chamber of Commerce, and the San Mateo County Association of
Realtors (SAMCAR), as well as several other individuals from various
city committees, commissions and local organizations.
The meeting’s attendance was a
“melting pot” of demographics: employed and unemployed, young and not
so young, professional and blue-collared, newly arrived residents and
long-term residents, Democrats and non-Democrats, all with the one
common link to each other being the fact that they were all Pacificans
and that they all had an interest in what the morning debaters would
reveal to them about the upside and downside of Measure V.
Debaters in the “Great Debate
of 2013” for the “Yes on V” side included campaign manager,
Kalimah Salahudin and City Council member, Karen Ervin. Representatives for the “No on V” side were Pacifica mortgage broker, Jim Wagner and Pacifica resident Mark Stechbart, both members of the Committee Against Higher Utility Taxes.
Kalimah Salahudin and City Council member, Karen Ervin. Representatives for the “No on V” side were Pacifica mortgage broker, Jim Wagner and Pacifica resident Mark Stechbart, both members of the Committee Against Higher Utility Taxes.
The Moderator of “The Great Debate of 2013” was Barbara Arietta, President of the Pacifica-Daly City Democrats.
Both
teams were advised by the Moderator that they did not have to take the
full time allotted for the opening remarks, questions and closing
remarks. If they could answer the questions in a shorter time frame,
they were encouraged to so, in order to answer as many questions as
possible. However, during the course of the morning’s debate, and in the
heat of the responses, both teams elected to take the full time
allowed, thus reducing the number of questions addressed.
At the end of the “Great
Debate of 2013,” the Pacifica members of the Pacifica-Daly City
Democrats, having heard both sides of the arguments, voted by a margin
of slightly over 2-1 to endorse “ Yes on Measure V “.
And, as the meeting attendees
exited the Sharp Park Restaurant’s Banquet Room at the conclusion of the
debate, one attendee exclaimed to her colleagues,” this debate was a
true example of Democracy in action!”
39 comments:
Pacifica council forget or could not figure out how to protect low income with an exemption, but republican Whittier, Calif did?
Man, that's weak.
Two gems of the day said by Kalimah Salahuddin
"the State of California forces the municipality to use a fake budget and a real budget, because we have to pad the budget with the fake numbers that they give us first, but then we eventually have to deal with the real numbers..."
" I am a single mother of three children who have cell phones. I am going to be taxed heavily on this."
Mark and Jim made good points about other cities having a protection for low income written into their UUT tax and even that our PG&E UUT already has such protection.
Yeah, yeah, debate all you want. make points, don't make points. At the end of the day, we still have a city council who, with this measure, has basically admitted they cannot run this city on the money coming in and have no hope of increasing revenue except for more taxes. No hope. This measure isn't a bridge til income from development kicks in, it's a white flag. They're waving a white flag and giving up. Development is a myth. This is our new Pacifica and people will accept it.
So how does this council differ from councils past?
Rantanon @ 1:34 PM, a simple one percent pay reduction for every $10,000 earned by our public sector would cure the revenue/tax/development issue for years to come.
The yes side has no message. Look at their signs. What does it say?
Some drivel about Pacifica blah blah. No signs say it just like it is, no phone tax. If those signs weren't out there how many voters would even have an idea what V is?
Even the ballot statement is misleading.
@ 241, that's how the yes side wanted it, confusing to voters. Hide that this is even a tax. Pull on peoples heart strings.
We have just tried to let people know what's going on.
The big pitch to seniors is funding for meals on wheels. The City of Pacifica only provides 24% of the funding for M.O.W.
Hire one less consultant each year and they would have M.O.W. funding covered with money left over.
You know, the $57,000 of taxpayers money the city spent before this even got a letter designating it Measure V could have gone a long way funding meals on wheels.
Todd, I am sure you understand that taking 1% off of earnings is easier said than done. There are numerous Unions involved that feel they have already given too much and some seem to be supporting the Measure V YES side I would think to assure there is money in the coffers for their union members. Let's try instead to support commercial development in town and not try to run down any project that comes up with continual delays. The Rock project might not be the best right now but let's work with the owner and not just decide it shouldn't be there. Asking him to scale the project back to 1/3 of the size is unreasonable because we all know there is no traffic problem at that intersection of Fassler and Highway 1. As far as the hotel in Rockaway, let's just move forward so that corner Highway property can be vibrant and appealing to people driving by. That spot has looked forlorn since Romano's moved out.
Anonymous at 6:08pm said... "You know, the $57,000 of taxpayers money the city spent before this even got a letter designating it Measure V could have gone a long way funding meals on wheels."
Monies expended to determine if the measure should move forward were a one time expense, that provided data on overall support for a measure; the information gathered has been used by parties on both sides of the measure.
Meals on Wheels is an ongoing program, needing a consistent long-term funding stream. You're comparing apples and peanuts.
A number of parents at Ingrid Lacey middle school have finally discovered this V will tax their kids' cell phone use. 100% No votes from my daughter's classroom.
1231 "Monies expended...". What a crock of spun bull. Why don't you call it what it was, ie, a sneaky, off the radar maneuver to improve the odds for Measure V. You know, what you did with this might be legal and current SOP among those we entrust with public office and public funds, but it reeks. Are your methods democratic? Are they ethical? What else have you done and what are you capable of? How much rationalizing do you have to do?
Just got my Pacifica Police Officers Association solicitation to send them some money. For what? To give to the yes side to help campaign to raise my taxes! I think not. Hell, do any of our cops live in town?!
Anon 210, please tell all the parents you can.
I guess our tough guy mayor cracked on the police department to give out more tickets. The PD was giving out tickets like holloween candy the last couple days.
Crack that whip!
Baby, that's your tax dollars at work. In the days leading up to V, I'd expect a higher police presence in town. And of course, more press about what a safe and scenic Garden of Eden Pacifica is. The political value of PR cannot be overstated.
@ Chris Porter, I understand the Holiday Inn folks have waved their 49 day appeal deadline in favor of working with Coastal Commission staff to improve the expansion and make it conform more closely with the Coastal Act, which is a state law.
The owner of The Rock property is in communication with me and the city and has hired a local architect to redesign the project to be 3 stories tall and be orientated on The Rock in such a way as to be unseen by the surrounding neighborhood. His choice.
You and your Chamber Coven along with Wagner and his co-joined twin may think you have all the answers, but reality has once again trumped your opinions and political positions.
Please have a great 1st of Nov.
Rest easy folks. Bray is in communication. He'll straighten these developers out. They dare to be visible from his neighborhood! Oh brother! The reality that has yet to set in is the financial one. Redesign and run the numbers. Will it still make enough money to be worth doing? That's when it gets real.
Too true Rantanon @ 12:16, too true.
Lets wait and see who the architect is and what sort of concept the owner and he/her comes up with.
BTW if anyone lurking out there has read this weeks report by Jane they will have read and hopefully comprehended the owner said unprompted by anyone I know he wants to scale back the project to 3 stories and have it hidden from site. My guess is he doesn't want to look at us (hummmm).
Guru could be thinking of something brilliant for that spot.
Todd
Or he could be playing you like a fish on the line.
"Tom Clifford said...
The big pitch to seniors is funding for meals on wheels. The City of Pacifica only provides 24% of the funding for M.O.W.
Hire one less consultant each year and they would have M.O.W. funding covered with money left over."
Can you expand on the call out about M.O.W. funding. Of course those are funded by both Federal and State monies. The budget debates, sequester and ongoing reductions being proposed for critical programs by the federal government show how tenuous these dollars are. That is exactly why Pacifica needs a steady stream of funding that that remains here in Pacifica so that these programs can remain in place.
Yes, consultant requests should be closely reviewed. The majority though are needed as they require a specific area of expertise that is outside of what city staff can provide, particularly after the years of staff reductions. It's not that simple of a trade-off.
Hey, 6:23, maybe the city should have invested the $57,000 they spent on prepping this tax in the meals on wheels program. How far would that have gone is the question.
Oh 623, you want Clifford to expand on the call out? Say what? It's good you're posting your apparently endless stream of bullshit on-line and anonymously. Impressive use of the sequester, BTW. Textbook. How's the nose? In another room? Different zip code?
@623 Let me get this straight. Council's reliance on consultants is due to staff cuts? Finally!! An expert on city employees. Be still my heart. You, sir or madam, have the opportunity to persuade some of us that those oft-referred to cuts were not all PT or casual labor. You know the
1/3rd staff reduction Ervin and other councilmembers have cited. Please, don't include the city attorney or those tree trimmers who became WWTP workers--their jobs were all outsourced and presumably the expertise is still available to Council. You must have massive amounts of data close by. How about a simple headcount comparison of FT to FT 2010 to 2013? Enlighten us and make our lives better. Sorry, but anything short of a FT to FT comparison will still be inadequate. We concede the value and worth of all those PT employees, so let's not go there.
Why are all the major players on the yes side afraid to put their name to any of this drivel? Oh wait i answered my own question.
Looks like they are launching an offensive after all the quiet time.
So 623 can you tell voters why they should believe what the city says about where this money will go when they lied in the past? Namely with the Fire Assessment Tax.
The yes campaign doesn't want this thing out in the open. It wont pass the smell test. They have gone out of their way to keep it hush hush, write a totally confusing measure, and quietly try to call seniors to try and scare them into voting yes.
Now it seems they're getting desperate and appearing on blogs. They have the same tiered argument.
Arguing about whether or not they are anonymous is silly when you can so easily argue the facts against the tax. It's like when people make the ridiculous "this abridges free speech" argument -- it's noise that clutters up all the real reasons thus tax should be voted down.
1008, then again, commenting under anonymous cover without making any substantial point for or against the tax is noise. Its like using "free speech" to grunt, girggle or fart.
All protected under the Constitution.
well, let's assume $6 per line per month is correct. That's roughly $100 a year for one line. I have 1 line, and 3 cells in the house. My tax bill will be $400 yearly. Now where should I spend my limited tax money?
- library next year?
- schools have a fundraiser monthly
- or a black hole for city council?
If you read the sample ballot it's like reading a primer on why you should vote no on this albatross.
Council can't possibly have read this thing. Damn, if they did........
Don't be silly. Nihart and Stone feed the rest only as much info as they can handle.
516 Good. Always round-up when you're talking taxes. Choices #1 and #3 are essentially the same. Buy more chocolate bars.
5:16, your math is off. At 6.5%, if your tax bill was $400 a year, that means you paid $6154 for phone service or about $514 per month for 1 line and 3 cell phones. If that's true, something's wrong with your phone plans. My 1 line + 3 cells are much less than half that.
The city has not substantiated any of their numbers. I believe they are all low. Things like bundling your cable and internet with phone will drive costs up to well over $200 per year. Other items on your phone bill like new phones, accessories, added data, late fees will add even more.
If this thing loses we need to push council to dump the ones on the financial task force that keep pushing these taxes. Banco is #1.
@ 936 that $400 number may not be so far fetched fo many. Measure V states that if you bundle your cable, internet and phone they can tax the whole amount. At $165 per month for that package and $220 a month for cell service that's over $300 in extra taxes. Many families have more than 3 cells on their plan so $400 is not out of the question. Yes you can ASK to have your bundles services separated by AT&T or Comcast or Direct TV etc. And it must be verifyable by the city. Good luck with that.
It just keeps getting better. Remember, property taxes are die December 10th! I have the Beatles "Taxman" looping in my head. There are so many hands in my pocket picking it there's no room for mine. When will they stop! This city tax is just the latest. They're taxing us right out of existence.
Now don't you forget your water bill goes up 7.3% starting in Jan. and they will shut it off if you don't pay.
Post a Comment