Fix Pacifica: Chris Fogel's take on why Measure V lost

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Chris Fogel's take on why Measure V lost

http://www.pacificaindex.com/articles.html

Submitted by Chris Fogel

39 comments:

Anonymous said...: Fogel nails it IMHO when he credits the Chamber's very measured and rational public stance and the Gerughty flyer as the WMD in the opposition arsenal. Add to that the astonishing way this new "turn-around" Council has squandered the public's good will and trust and you have the Measure V fiasco. Blind arrogance.

By their own clumsy hand with V, outsourcing, the commission shake-up and more, this Council may be lame ducks. It's likely their City Communication Plan, no matter how skillfully administered, will be seen as propaganda by a wary and weary public.

Did the defeat of V also kill the library bond and Beach Blvd project? It should have. Only a tone-deaf Council would pursue a library bond now. We can't rule that out. But if there's no library to take up space and cut into profit, that property may find a buyer.; November 17, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Len and Mary Ann poisoned the well with their choice of a tax and spend measure over the library bond.; November 17, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Not one of Fogel's best efforts. Not much credit given to a grass roots effort that defeated V. And what was that about the no side hacking the yes sides website? Got any documentation on that Chris? Stick with reporting facts.; November 17, 2013 at 9:36 PM
Anonymous said...: @9 Some of us look at it as killing two birds with one Stone. Thanks Len and Mary Ann! It was all you and it's the best thing you've ever done.; November 17, 2013 at 9:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Let's count the money. Previously, plans for the Vreeland City Hall complex ate up at least $350K before the project was torpedoed. Those plans are wallpaper. The current library/hotel/condos farce has consumed at least that much for plans, consultants, fairy dust and funny glasses. Isn't it time to stop the charade? No matter which 'special fund' that money comes from, stop wasting it!; November 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: 936 read for content not credit and be careful what you wish for; November 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Steve Sinai said...: I doubt that many voters knew or cared about the back-room wrangling behind Measure V, or how the campaigns were run.

I think it was defeated primarily because taxpayers don't trust council to use the money wisely. In this respect, the current council is paying for the sins of previous councils.

And the off-the-shelf Yes campaign was a total failure. Chris was right in describing it as too generic and ingenuine. It was almost like they were resigned to failure, and didn't bother putting much effort into it.; November 18, 2013 at 12:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Chris said "The debate itself was a wash, with the NO side’s prickly and bullying manner dulling its message.

So Chris, you say repeatedly that the no side dulled or hurt their message. Called them snarky, childish.

The election results don't bear that out.

Can you tell us which side you were on because this piece comes off as being a little biased.; November 18, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: chris is editorializing. This article is not a news story, it's purely his opinion. So he can write anything he wants, although readers should understand the story is just his impressions. For all the speculations about behavior or attitude, No side did a great job even outspent 50-1 and the Yes side got their clock cleaned.; November 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Chris Fogel said...: I didn't "take sides" when putting the piece together.

There were a lot of personalities involved in this campaign, but I tried not to write about them, but rather about the development of the campaign itself. By taking this approach, I perhaps didn't adequately make the case that much of the motivation behind the No campaign was political (i.e. personal). I tried to allude to this by touching on Council's actions with regard to the commissions/committees shakeup. Several individuals took this action personally and chose to take positions on V based on it. Actions of council do not occur in a vacuum and have effects and consequences. In this case, it sowed the seeds of opposition or, at the very least, didn't generate any goodwill towards council.

Yes, I feel the debate was a wash. First of all, it took place two weeks after mail-in ballots had been received by Pacificans (I had already cast my vote by the debate) and it was attended by about 60 people, so it was a very inconsequential thing. I attended and the felt that it was a wash for the reasons given: NO raised some good points, but appeared petty and personal at times; YES appeared unorganized. In the end, the club members voted to endorse, but I doubt the action made any difference in the outcome of the election.

The Yes Campaign's website had a link to a page where one could sign up for time slots to volunteer to canvass, phone bank and otherwise support the campaign. Opponents went to the site and signed up (I never used the word "hacked") to volunteer, posting comments where someone's name would normally have appeared in a time slot. They were very childish comments and links back to them were posted on the No campaign's Facebook page under the heading "Hahahahahaha." I believe there was also a link posted to Fix Pacifica at some point. The Facebook post has since been removed and the original volunteer site was shut down at the conclusion of the campaign.

Although the opinions in the article are my own, they are based on discussions I had with at least twenty people involved in the campaign in some manner over the course of the last six months, so they're not pulled out of thin air and I stand by them.

In any case, even if you think the piece is horrible, I thank you for taking the time to read it.; November 18, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Chris Porter said...: Hi Chris and thank you for analysis but completely disagree with your comments on the debate.; November 18, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Seems like the yes side strategy relied completely on a small, predictable turn out. The no side not only 'turned' some of that predictable target demographic, but also increased the turn out just enough for voters' usual negative response to tax measures to prevail. Do you really think that was a surprise to the consultants or their clients?

Once the chamber took a position, council had opponents who not only did not want to be on the losing side, but must have recognized this as an easy way to enhance their rep as a political power, as kingmakers. It's no secret voters hate taxes. It's not hard to help them do what comes natural on election day.

The flyer with Gerughty's name on it was perfectly timed and raised the right issues in the right way. Trust was always the big issue whether it's about past or present councils or both. That flyer chipped away at the yes side's target vote-by-mail demographic. The flyer also raised the voter turn out which destabilized the Yes strategy. The debate? Lucky it wasn't seen by more voters. For the no side a risky display of egos for little return.

Fogel raises the issue of council being too involved politically with this measure. Sub-committee fingerprints are on it, but I think it was a very calculated move made on the advice of staff and consultants. Sort of a let's see if we can sneak one of these past the voters. Hoping for no credible opposition and that low turn out and keeping their distance from it just in case. What a perfect opportunity for the Chamber! Gift-wrapped. Expect the whole expensive fiasco to be blamed on Rhodes. If it also kills the library scheme and opens up Beach Blvd to real revenue-producing development, then the Chamber has done this town a huge favor.; November 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Most voters are on a personal level blissfully oblivious to the politicians' plotting and planning, public and private alliances, and the vendettas although all of that determines the campaign strategies to which voters respond. Voters can be pretty much be relied on to vote against taxes if they bother to vote. The no side succeeded in "bothering" them to vote in an election the yes side had been advised they'd sleep through. Simplest of strategies.; November 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I can believe there were some over zealous no-siders with poor judgment. Some folks confuse grassroots with scorched earth. Without the Chamber's involvement that kind of stuff could have been disastrous for the no side. Voters hate negative campaigning and petty or obviously personal arguments.; November 18, 2013 at 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Fogel, some folk aren't going to be happy til you roll the credits.; November 18, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: So Chris as long as you're giving your opinion please tell us how you voted on V?; November 18, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: A lot of arm chair QBing here. V lost, get over it. What hurt or helped the "no" campaign is your opinion. And everyone knows what opinions are like.; November 18, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Look out Chris Fogel, sounds like someone is riled up, and feeling unappreciated. Next, you'll be called a NIMBY. In this country how you voted or even if you voted is no one's business.

Thanks for what you do for the community and for doing it so well.; November 18, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Hutch said...: I strongly disagree with Chris on his opinion that our side was vengeful, childish or bullies. He should tell us what side he was on so we can take his commentary with the proper salt. Or I'll take his silence to mean he was in favor of this tax.; November 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM
Chris Fogel said...: (cross-posted to Riptide)

I accept and acknowledge the criticisms and shortcomings of my piece.

In writing my editorial & analysis, I did my best to keep the discussion about the campaign & tactics--as I perceived them--and to avoid a discussion of the individuals involved. To this end, I avoided naming the private individuals working on either side of the campaign.

It was a fine line to straddle--and may not have even been possible. Despite my efforts, I hurt some feelings which was not my intent. I assure you that I was (and am) aware that good people worked on both sides of the issues and I tried my best to respect this; however, I feel that we as a community benefit from examining what happened and learning from the mistakes made.

Pacifica cannot keep repeating the same mistakes again and again and expect that the results will be any different the next time those same mistakes are made. In order to move forward, we must have some unity of purpose and agree upon some direction. I feel that the developing Communications Plan and the hiring of our new City Manager, Lorie Tinfow, lays the groundwork for this possibility and I am encouraged by it.

As for my characterization of the No campaign (largely positive, by the way) I'll let the comments posted by its members both here and on Riptide speak for themselves. Readers are free to compare them with my thoughts and determine if I'm completely off base.; November 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Scotty said...: Excellent point, Chris. If the only way you can win your argument is by demonizing your opponent, then you are no better than a tea party wingnut, regardless of the outcome.

There are people on both sides of this (and most) local issues who need to learn a little civility, because the city benefits when people are able to disagree without being disagreeable. It's my experience that better results occur when "compromise" is not considered a dirty word.; November 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Steve Sinai said...: Chris seemed a lot harsher toward the Yes side in his analysis. I'll guess he voted no.

I have to admit, I also wondered how much of Tom's motivation for leading the charge against V was his removal from the Planning Commission. It could have been revenge, or it could have been that by being off the Planning Commission, he felt free to do what he believed in. Or both. Or neither.; November 19, 2013 at 12:34 PM
Hutch said...: Can anyone please show me where our campaign demonized anyone on the yes side? Yes it was a tough fight. We were up against a well funded effort. Yes we criticized the yes campaign organizers for statements such as the ones made at the debate about having two budgets. That's far from demonizing or personal attacks. We did what we did by telling the truth and presenting facts. If that hurt peoples feelings then so be it. But don't call it bullying or childish to stand up and say no that's not true. Whatever we did sure did not cause voters to turn off to our message. So go ahead and armchair quarter back. Just sounds like sour grapes. I wouldn't do anything differently.; November 19, 2013 at 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: We're all human and should have enough empathy to understand how Tom could be angry when he was not reappointed to the PC. Might have been part of his motivation to go public against V. He is a fair-minded man, and, IMHO, it was also the lack of means testing that pissed him off. Add in the puzzling way this council rushed the roll out and you've got a lot of motivation to oppose a hot mess of a measure. Our very own micromini-Obamacare scandal.; November 19, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh Fogel, please don't sweat the small stuff. The people who would demand your voting record and bristle at remarks they clearly take personally, are always with us. They'd benefit from a good old Jesuit class in critical thinking and a stern Aunt Emily to teach them how to disagree without being disagreeable. Mea maxima culpa for saying that.; November 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM
Tom Clifford said...: Steve it was the latter.

I tried repeatedly to get Council
to make the changes needed to the UUT so that it could be seen as a fair tax on all the users. A tax I could both vote for and support.

1. At the stakeholders meeting I pointed out that the proposed tax was unfair to the truly needy, while favoring people like me who had the means to pay and the good luck to get old.

2. I also pointed out that if the tax on Businesses was going to be capped that the tax on resident of Pacifica should also be capped.
(I know Council and the yes campaign both said that no user could possible reach the cap, but remember Council crack open the original PG&E UUT to link the $500 business Cap to the new phone UUT. Council could have done the same for everyone they just made the choice not to.)

I also reach out to individual Council members and shared my concerns.

Finally I spoke at the City Council meeting the night the measure was adopted, Repeating the message that they needed to make this tax fairer.

opposing Measure V was not an easy decision, and certainly not one made in anger.; November 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll tell you who they were mean to. The poor little old labor unions. You dared to call them out for milking the taxpayer and funding the yes on V folks. How dare you be so mean and actually say we should cut wages. Meanies.; November 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM
Hutch said...: Tom your actions speak louder than anything others may say. Your sincere effort in trying to convince council to protect low income people in measure V are unquestionable and on the record.; November 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: So is the answer to get rid of the counsel and replace them? With who? They may not be perfect but they are the closest thing we have had to a real counsel in 20 years. You guys want to go back to the days of Loeb and Vreeland? Or do you want work with the group you got? Einstein said that the defection of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It seems that many of you are determined to prove him a liar.; November 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: 547 Say what? You think this is the best we can do? Now that's depressing. Let's keep the focus on results and improving Pacifica and continue to look for people who can get it done. There are bound to be false starts and even false prophets along the way. We owe them nothing.; November 19, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Not what pay cut fans want to hear, but SJ has just decided to give cops a 10% catch-up raise phased in over 2 years plus a 2% immediate bonus. It'll restore them to their 2009 pay levels before SJ made deep cuts to stay afloat. The city acknowledges they can't afford to do this and it will cause cuts in other areas, but they have lost too many officers to higher-paying organizations. And the cops union is tougher than some others. This catch-up stuff is going to be real popular. Wonder if Pacifica is already doing it?; November 19, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Kathy Meeh said...: 547, if Einstein made the comment about "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" in isolation he made a mistake.

Improved performance and quality frequently occur from "doing the same thing over and over again". What happens in the process is craftsmanship, perseverance, breakthrough inspiration, creativity and sometimes brilliance. Einstein himself worked on some theorems forever during his lifetime.

Thus, the quote linked to Einstein is only partially correct. But repeating the same mantra over and over in isolation is really nuts! Think about it.; November 19, 2013 at 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Whether Tom was angry or not isn't the issue, the point is that as a free agent he could follow his conscience in a way he might not have as a PC.

Likewise Celeste Langille certainly wouldn't have been the lead lawyer suing the city if she were on the PC.

The PC shakeup released some powerful unintended consequences.; November 19, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: IMO Tom always followed his conscience which is probably why he's off the PC.; November 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Anonymous said...: To write an opinion piece and not declare your leanings is to not be honest and transparent with your readers. It is journalistically unethical.

"The responsibility should be on journalists to explain why they aren’t telling us for whom they vote, rather than claiming it’s a private matter that would only open them up to dismissal by partisan players or exclusion by politicians who don’t believe they’ll receive a fair hearing" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/15/journalists-should-declare-vote; November 20, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Steve Sinai said...: I read lots of opinion pieces every day that are written by people who don't declare their political leanings.

There's nothing unethical about it.; November 20, 2013 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous said...: It's a blog, people. Get over it.

Witch-hunting whether someone voted a certain way rather than discussing their point of view is exactly what's wrong both locally and nationally.

Only children and ideologues refuse to compromise.; November 20, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I find it ironic that someone so eager to intrude on the privacy of the American voting booth, is doing so anonymously? Sometimes. Of course I make this observation as an anonymous, but still, this is some pretty funny shit.; November 20, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: @5 that's brilliant. we can all find opinions to support our opinion. it's still only an opinion, just like fogel's piece.

what's really bothering you?; November 20, 2013 at 9:04 PM