| Ongoing message to City Council: Is there another economic solution, other than a tax or fee, that is? |
Pacifica Patch, Christa Bigue, Editor, 11/6/13. "Pacifica-Daly City Democrats Club responds to Measure V loss."
.... “In 2009-10, the city's reserve was standing at $6.6 million. Today it has deteriorated to $1.8 million. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out which direction the reserve is going. Revenues remain flat and costs keep rising. Something's gotta give in the very near future,” said president of the Pacifica-Daly City Democrats Club, Barbara Arietta, who writes to Patch about the loss of Measure V and the need to “invest in this city, it's businesses and also in its tourism potential”:
"This was truly a "No Confidence" vote that doesn't bode well for the future success of our City Council in establishing a sustainable income source to prevent further cuts in our city's services. The citizens of Pacifica turned down a sustainable revenue generating measure, put forth by the City Council, in 2009, and now they have once again refused to pass another sustainable revenue generating measure requested by the City Council." Read article.
Note: photograph from Jodi Lea Stewart's Blog, "Clearing out Cobwebs."
Submitted by Bob Hutchinson
Posted by Kathy Meeh
16 comments:
Barbara should resign immediately. She has lost touch with the electorate and reality. To blame City Council after she backed measure V with all her heart is pathological. Have you ever been at a meeting with her? She goes on and on about all her accomplishments talking about herself. The woman needs to go.
Barbara makes an excellent point that what is needed is: "..invest in this city, it's businesses and also in its tourism potential." And you would think that is the universal, underlying message from citizens to city council. After all, asking citizens for another quick fix tax didn't work, again.
Anonymous 241, I think your comment centered on the messenger (Barbara Arietta) is both vicious and irresponsible. The message is relevant, do you agree or disagree?
The underlying theme from Barbara's perspective, I believe, is that the city needs revenue. Other people and organizations supported Measure V (the phone tax) for the same reason. Does the city need revenue? Clearly it does, and you probably agree unless substandard city conditions appeal to you.
The meetings I've attended in the past, which Barbara has organized and presided over, have been efficient and not centered on her personal accomplishments, theories, public or circumspect thoughts. On the other hand, your comment is anonymous, and from that cowardly cover is your personal perspective clouded, hateful (the result of some bias), even "pathological" (your word)?
Meow. Babs is no more out of touch than the dopes who placed V on the ballot. Sounds like she was being a team player and now is analyzing the team's loss. So what? Her ego and her accomplishments are both substantial. Understandable how that could be so annoying, particularly if they overshadow one's own.
KM, if you want to support business then why are you in such a rush to have our most recent successful businesses wiped out by Caltrans? Lovey's will be gone along with The Whole Beast (opening soon in the old KFC spot)? Your dogma makes no sense
If we're going to get psychological 241, your seething post seems a tad obsessive. I'm guessing it's not your first regarding Barbara.
241 Council got their arse kicked on this one. How dare Barbara publicly recognize that the revenue problem remains with us and the voters' lack of confidence in Council's preferred solution is extreme. Doesn't she know that council's official spin must always come first?
Todd 439, develop the quarry, Beach Blvd, and infill for revenue (including some housing). Raise the height limits. Fix the Caltrans highway so traffic can flow. And with best science, protect the city from sea level rise. Did your head explode yet?
If not, move some endangered frogs to the Montara pond. That's it, mission accomplished.
440, no your comment sounds like bottom of the class, psychology 10. The comment from 241 was misdirected, wrong and ugly-- all under anonymous cover, just like your comment 440.
Yup, Kathy, you're absolutely right. I was snarky. That's me standing in the corner. And it was worth it.
Chain saws, Manchurian stepford husbands, exploding heads, frogs on the run. Pretty violent for a hippie hamlet.
613 yea, well you were more than snarky. What you said was not defensible, wrong, and FMV should not have been posted. Besides that, you wasted my time.
Worth it to you? From your own words at 241, have you lost touch with reality? If not, turn the word trash around to you and see how you like what you said. Like or agree with her or not, Barbara does a lot of effective work in the county and city, gratis on behalf of the city and the citizens who live here.
Good grief Kathy, have a snickers!! You're having trouble sorting out the anonymi, tonight. I made my snarky comment at 440 in response to the attack on Barbara. You objected. I fessed up at 603. Again, the opening comment slamming Barbara @ 241 was not mine. Barbara Arrieta is an asset to this town and has been for many years.
Once again, Barbara says in 500 words what should be said in 50. It's painful to read a dissertation that runs long on words and short on comment. She's eloquent to a fault. Cut in by 80%and the message may come through more clearly.
MHO
651, In the spirit of widgit "no identity" Anonymous, think of your sacrificed comments as collateral damage, or road kill. On the other hand, you confirmed that you are not 241.
Again, the article made at least two important comments that most Pacificans do understand: 1) “invest in this city, it's businesses and also in its tourism potential”; and 2) extended thought, a "no confidence" vote to a history of city councils for the usual, easy tax and fee fixes passed to citizens of this city.
As citizens of this city we have more than done our part: enough volunteering, enough supplementing the ever failing revenue of this city. Decision making comes from city council.
With the prospect that city councils will no longer be picking our pockets through excessive taxes, the invitation remains open for city council to focus on fixing the economic cash stream of this city. Will this city council accept this heroic invitation, or will they (similar to other city council majorities) continue to sit it out for the duration?
937 for those who can read, the message was clear enough in the first 50 words.
Describe 241 and 937 in one word. Jealous.
Post a Comment