Saturday, July 12, 2014

General plan changes, "Growth/no growth"

Seriously, this is the best
this city can do?
Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff, 7/8/14.  "Pacificans weigh in on proposed general plan changes." Section:  "Growth/no growth."

To grow or not to grow,
to climb or to remain stunted,
a Bonsai, or to wither.
"The law office of Patrick Hall representing Jack Lowe, owner of eight acres at 4000 Palmetto Avenue, "The Bluffs," wrote, "The general plan shows a down zoning per acre, which would diminish property value."

Mike Bell said, "The human inhabitants need housing and our city needs revenue to care for all this natural beauty and critical infrastructure," Bell said.

Bill Collins wrote, "It would be wise for Pacifica to adopt a new general plan that encourages more growth in residents and development if the infrastructure is inadequate to accommodate that growth. City Council should adopt a growth management protection section as an important and helpful part of any change to the general plan."

Bob Hutchinson wrote he objects to the housing limits. "Maintaining a stagnant population has not worked for Pacifica over the last 30 years," he wrote. He further noted new affordable housing was needed and suggested 10 percent affordable housing built into every new project."

Note:  photo/graphic from Highway 12  Bonsai tree from Bonsai outlet retailer.

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Holy Cow. Realtors and friends want growth, particularly housing, and the enviros, don't. And I'm assuming Bill Collins meant to say unwise rather than wise. Jack Lowe must be 90 by now. Give him whatever he wants before his property falls in the ocean.

Anonymous said...

excuse me. official town plant is marijuana. official town chemical is meth.

Anonymous said...

Its false that property values will go down. On the contrary, they will actually increase. Decreasing the number of residents in Pacifica would definitely align city expenditures to revnues. Its a win for Pacifica!

Anonymous said...

455 Really? We going to draw straws to see who goes? Permanent freeze on city wages, pensions and other costs? I think Mr. Lowe was concerned with any down-zoning of his Palmetto property. It would restrict use and return. We've seen the economy do enough of that without the city meddling. Down-zoning is just another way to "save" property from development.

Kathy Meeh said...

455, wow we've been winning all these years. And we're finally going to get half of Linda Mar washboard Boulevard paved (through a grant of course). Wonder where all that city road revenue went prior?

Are our property values higher after 30 years of no growth tactics, and resulting 50-60% permanent open space? Example, compare Pacifica to Daly City business and housing density. Is Pacifica financially better off? Of 20 cities in San Mateo County, Daly City revenue is #1, Pacifica is #20. And that's a big lose for Pacifica!

Since you don't "get it", a city has certain fix expenditures, similar to a business. And a better city (for the benefit of the entire community, not just you) has desired improvements. With a better stream of city revenue, its doubtful that "robbing Peter to pay Paul" accounting would have occurred over the past 10+ years. The neglected WWTP might not have incurred the "Our Children's" lawsuit to fix. City roads, facilities and equipment might all be better maintained. NGOs which improve the quality of life in our city might be routinely funded. Building a new library might not be a city joke. And city hall might be ADA compliant.

Reality: city revenue must come-in (through sales tax @ 1%, parcel taxes @ 11%, user fees, other fees-- plus county, state, federal funding, and grants to pay the city/business overhead. (Some of the outside funding is allocated based upon increased demographics/population). Whereas, you say "decreasing the number of residents.. would definitely align city expenditures to revenue". And that statement is DEFINITELY INCORRECT! Proof again NIMBIES can't count.

Anonymous said...

Daly City is #1 in revenue? That does it. Let's get annexed by Daly City. Half of the people in their TJ's and Target and Macy's are from Pacifica. They're already getting our sales tax, let's give them our property tax, too! We couldn't pay the bills to begin with and now we're 4 million in the hole and the hits keep coming. Apply the economy of scale to the cost of piss poor government in this town. Let DC run it.

Anonymous said...

The property values in Pacifica are in line with rest of bayarea. They would be higher if there are more open spaces and fewer people living.
Daly city is a dump. Its the armpit of sf.

Hutch said...

Thanks for that info Kathy.

It's no wonder Pacifica is #20 out of 20. I believe we are the only city that didn't add any population over 30 years.

Now the nimby's want to decrease citizens? Stupendous idea if you want to turn us into a Detroit with more empty storefronts and increased crime and less police to fight it.

What's that about repeating the same thing and expecting a different result? Yeah please get a calculator 455.

Anonymous said...

708 Gee. If we go through the same devolution as EPA will we get an IKEA, a 5 star hotel, and all kinds of new stuff after it's over? I ask only because that seems to be where we're headed. We don't have the body count but financially, in terms of city leadership and with a crumbling infrastructure, we could be twins with the old EPA.

Anonymous said...

Population? Think about it. To add 5000 people you'd need 2000 to 2500 new homes, apts. condos, trailers whatev. Highly unlikely given the lack of land and developer interest.
High-rises in the quarry? Yeah.

Anonymous said...

708 You favor more open space and fewer people living in Pacifica. You're describing a cemetary. The quarry would be perfect.