"No steps backward by Bill Haskins."
 |
| Yes on mixed-use quarry development. Yes on 1.3 mile highway 1 widening. YES for city improvement! |
"Seasoned Pacificans can and should connect the dots by recognizing it's pretty much the same people, mentality that fought mixed-use economic development in the old quarry (Measure L) who are now vehemently opposed to the much needed improvement of the outdated, inadequate stretch of road between Rockaway Beach and Fairway Park to the north.
Why? Because their main argument when the development came up for a vote a couple of elections ago was that the highway was inadequate for the traffic increase! Hello! Of course, they won't be able to use that argument when a new mixed-use development is proposed in the future should Pacifica wisely move forward. It's so important we Pacificans take time to support and vote for the three candidates that will continue to move us in the right direction.
Vote to keep us away from the 30+ years of economic stagnation & inaction that came with the old "Friends of Pacifica" mentality. That's why I urge all of you to vote for Mike O'Neill, Eric Ruchames, and Victor Spano in this important City Council election."
Submitted by Bill Haskins
---------
Note: the above article by Bill Haskins was also sent to the Pacifica Tribune letters to the editor. Note: photograph by Bob Pilgrim from the Pacifica quarry No on L campaign.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
46 comments:
Realtor's Choice Award goes to O'Neill, Spano and Ruchames. Follow the money in all things. Thanks, for making it clear, Haskins.
521, thanks for repeating "follow the money". That's exactly what this city needs to do for a change: follow money. Decades of city financial inadequacy. Follow the money, now you've got it. City solvency, fix broken and neglected city infrastructure, update highway 1, elect 21st century candidates. I like it!
Now, now. Are you pickin' pockets, again, Kathy? To follow that money you'd have to because it's going to be deep in the pockets of a few realtors and such. And Pacifica will be more broke than ever. But hey, you go girl!
Yeah, follow that money!
605, follow the money comes with accountability for a desired project. Develop the concept, build the project, do a job, get paid. The community benefits, a new stream of revenue is created. If Realtors or anyone else is involved with the project: good!
When NIMBIES oppose city improvements, they frequently twist this "free market" concept into a false dialog between "them" vs. "us", if they can't find some bogus reason to sue.
Kathy, the city agreed to pay 5.5 million to build a trail out of town and you support this fiscal malfeasance.
Please explain how this dumb-ass trail to nowhere will generate $5.5 million in revenue for this city in our grandchildren's lifetimes.
When outside groups gave money to the yes on measure V campaign, that was very very bad.
When outside groups give money to the O'Neill, Spano, and Ruchames campaigns, well you see, that's perfectly fine.
Welp, that's a good dose of Fix Pacifica logic for ya
716 Pretzel Man, don't worry. An explanation of this apparent hypocrisy will be forthcoming. I think you'll like it. It'll probably be full of references to nimbys and have more twists and turns than, yeah, a pretzel.
605, Pretzel 716, do some research and get back to us. Organizations gave money and endorsed city council candidates who completed questionnaires and debates. The Sierra Club and other eco-organizations may very well have given money to their endorsed candidates.
Measure V (telephone/internet tax) was different. No phones or internet to complete questionnaires or debate. Those campaign contributions came from more distant interests. Someone else may have the detail on that, or if interested you may research.
More than half of all the money donated to the O'Neill campaign has been from a single donation from an outside realtor PAC. More than half. Let that sink in for a bit.
In addition to this, a Chicago group handled his National Realtor Association sponsored mailer. Another $7K "gift right there.
ontaved SquareBack to Haskin's letter. Is anyone really saying there's no traffic? I don't think so, but a great number of people are saying there are better ways to fix the traffic than the Caltrans plan. We've been manipulated by a council majority bowing to Caltrans and pro-development interests, into thinking that there is no other solution. That's not about traffic. It's about money for the few at the expense of the community.
I never understood why some people start foaming at the mouth at the thought of Real Estate Agents.
9:30, where are you getting your info?
Foaming at the mouth? Nah, but maybe a tad suspicious of their political activism and investment on behalf of politicians and causes that put money in their pockets. Campaign financing is such a dark hole, at any political level. Follow the money may be the only way to find the real motives and beneficiaries. Make it an informed decision, whatever way you vote.
O'Neill's postcard clearly says paid for by some National Realtor's Assoc in Chicago. They probably get a bulk discount so not worth as much as we might think.
There's no reason to be surprised that Mike O'Neill got money from real estate agents. I don't have a problem with that, and can't imagine that most people care.
I just want to know where claims like over half of Mike's money is from a single outside realtor PAC, and he got a donation worth $7K, came from.
If people don't have a legitimate source, we can only assume that someone is making things up.
Anyone who has worked in advertising knows how much those mailers are. Full color, double-sided, 6x8, to registered voters... Yeah... about 45 cents each plus shipping. Not cheap. Must be nice to have such caring friends.
O'Neill, Ruchames, and Spano were given $3,500 EACH by an outside realtor PAC.
Follow the money, people!
You're speculating about what it costs to send out mailers, and you're speculating about who paid for them. I'd like to see some kind of campaign filing.
Steve, ONiell, Spano and Ruchames each recieved $3500 from real estate PAC's like the Samcar organization. It's been reported by each campaign regarding political donations. Your blog, this one here, Ickpacifica, ran the numbers. By contrast Keener has raised well over $6000 from individuals,
Tod 1241, and Kenner and Digre received how much from the Sierra Club and other eco-organizations that support excessive open space in this city? List here.
Steve is being obtuse because he'd prefer to keep his head in the sand about this.
PACs don't have to file disclosures in the same way that campaigns do nor are they supposed to coordinate, so if you want to somehow track down the Chicago outfit's "donation in kind" disclosure to figure out whether the mailer cost $6K or $7K, be my guest.
As for the direct campaign donations, well, Steve, why don't you march down to City Hall and pull the 460's and see for yourself instead of insisting that the whole world is wrong.
Is it asking too much to ask people to back up their claims with evidence, especially when those with an agenda post the claims anonymously?
I still haven't seen any real evidence regarding who's been contributing to Mike O'Neill's campaign. I can't imagine most people care in the first place.
Well, it looks like Nancy Hall has returned. Our resident muse and renowned urban planner must have been studying traffic engineering while absent. She now purports to be an expert on highway renovation and safety. She joins her buddies, Bohner, Loeb, and the rest of the Gang of NO in explaining to us, the common folk, why Caltrans is evil, doesn't know what they are doing, and will ruin Pacifica. That refrain has a familiar ring to it. I believe the year was 2006. Pacifica had an extraordinary opportunity for something special to be built at the quarry. That Pampas Grass forest in the old limestone quarry could have been a focal point of a new and rejuvenated Pacifica. I have no doubt that our city's financial health would not be teetering on life support right now had we allowed the process to move forward. We have Nancy Hall and her Gang of No to thank for our moribund economy. Are we going to listen to them again?! Remember the better idea they had for the quarry? Where is it? I think eight years is enough time to come up with a plan. Now Nancy explains to us that there is a better solution to fixing our highway. We need to study it some more for other alternatives. We've heard this all before. I, for one, aren't buying in. I didn't buy in in 2006 and I'm not buying in now. This Gang of No wants nothing, nowhere, no how, never. Pacifica deserves better.
Gee, maybe Caltrans should replace its traffic engineers with artists and musicians.
Nah, Caltrans just needs to replace staff with people who live in the 21st century.
Switcheroo? Caltrans is stuck in the 80s so it's gotta be Madonna and Janet, maybe a little Cindi Lauper with Basquiat at the easel. Couple boy bands. Pass out the hard hats and safety vests!
To Ghost:
If you clicked the link and read the article you would see that traffic planners throughout the world have shown that you can't build your way out of congestion. Apparently artists and musicians do a good job of reading, are willing to ask questions and seek current solutions versus outdated thinking.
"As a kid, I used to ask my parents why they couldn’t just build more lanes on the freeway. Maybe transform them all into double-decker highways with cars zooming on the upper and lower levels. Except, as it turns out, that wouldn’t work. Because if there’s anything that traffic engineers have discovered in the last few decades it’s that you can’t build your way out of congestion. It’s the roads themselves that cause traffic...."
"...But before we get to the solutions, we have to take a closer look at the problem. In 2009, two economists—Matthew Turner of the University of Toronto and Gilles Duranton of the University of Pennsylvania—decided to compare the amount of new roads and highways built in different U.S. cities between 1980 and 2000, and the total number of miles driven in those cities over the same period.
“We found that there’s this perfect one-to-one relationship,” said Turner.
If a city had increased its road capacity by 10 percent between 1980 and 1990, then the amount of driving in that city went up by 10 percent. If the amount of roads in the same city then went up by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000, the total number of miles driven also went up by 11 percent. It’s like the two figures were moving in perfect lockstep, changing at the same exact rate."
PS - This position doesn't provide an endorsement for Keener, but shares that there are alternatives that need to be looked at.
9:29
This is a for free blog, not a court of law. Plus, you are reaching way way out there.
It doesn't matter whether it's a free blog or a court of law. If someone states something as a fact, they need to be able to back it up if asked.
Still waiting....
1050 You don't really think this is about relieving traffic congestion, do ya?
Anonymous at 11:18am said..."1050 You don't really think this is about relieving traffic congestion, do ya?"
Good point. What is the real issue that is to be addressed? The only candidate that asks that question straight out is Eric Ruchames.
10:50, The problem is that the people opposed to the widening keep telling Caltrans to look at alternatives it's already rejected. If Caltrans were to revisit the alternatives, why do you think the final conclusions would be any different?
"Steve Sinai said...
10:50, The problem is that the people opposed to the widening keep telling Caltrans to look at alternatives it's already rejected. If Caltrans were to revisit the alternatives, why do you think the final conclusions would be any different?"
The recent report on CalTrans and conversations reported with them clearly show that they did not conduct a thorough or open review; it wasn't part of their culture to do so. The proposal to widen is outdated. Again, the question comes back to what is this about -- resolving traffic congestion? (clearly shown in the report that the widening will not resolve by almost immediately returning to a subpar level of service) safety? (also noted as not the primary focus for the proposed widening project) or development? Before paving the coast let's talk honestly about the goal.
Not true, Steve. People keep telling Caltrans to look at alternatives that they never considered, such as modern technology for controlling traffic flow - video, sensors in the roadway, etc. Even the Coastal Commission told Caltrans to look at a COMBINATION of alternatives and Caltrans refused to do that.
Here we go again. Mention of some vague, unknown report without any way to reference it.
Is this an independent report, or one written by those opposed to the highway widening?
Don't bother trying to change Steve's mind. You could him him down and shove the campaign finance disclosures in his face and he would howl that it wasn't certified by a notary.
He wants to believe what he wants to believe, facts be damned -- the true personification of the Fix Pacifica experience
Caltrans builds highways. They don't do alternatives. Even they acknowledge that. It's an out of touch, out of date, entrenched culture closed to innovation. Pacifica is being steam-rolled on this one. And, oh look, it will also encourage development. That would explain the real estate lobby's keen interest. Nothing against realtors, have a couple in the family. They say, duh!
12:12, Caltrans did look a those things. It even let Sue Digre bring in an outside firm to look at the problem, and here is the summary from the city -
On May 6, 2013 a meeting was held on Highway 1 signal synchronization with Steve Mager , Account Manager for In|Sync . In attendance at the meeting were Mayor Len Stone, Steve Rhodes, Van Ocampo, Joe Hurley (San Mateo County Program Director), Chris Mitchell traffic consultant (Traffic Engineer – Fehr and Peers Traffic Consultants), and Steve Mager. Councilmember Digre was scheduled to participate but was unable to attend.
Mr. Mager introduced his product and said that it is a successful approach to relieve traffic congestion in some circumstances and has been successfully applied in many situations. He stated that where there is a capacity issue (too many cars for the same stretch of roadway) their product will not resolve the problem.
Mr. Mager asked questions about the current and projected congestion, traffic volume and the signal cycle on Highway 1in the section being discussed. After hearing that information, he felt that the In|Sync system would not resolve the problem. He said that synchronization would not result in any improvement in traffic flow during the peak periods. He felt the solution was to pursue a capacity increasing improvement.
Is the strategy of the widening opponents to continuously tell Caltrans to keep looking until the end of time?
"Don't bother trying to change Steve's mind...He wants to believe what he wants to believe, facts be damned."
No need to get so frustrated, 12:21. I'm asking for evidence because I don't believe some of the things being written. If evidence is provided, I'll shut my yap.
Still waiting...
1221, NIMBIES don't do "alternatives" either, they just talk about it and have no funding.
20 year congestion problem. Traffic flow will be much better with the highway 1.3 mile widening, and that's studied science from CA Department of transportation professionals.
Steve, Believe you are aware of the State of California report that was directed to be conducted on CalTrans and that was released in January 2014. A few quotes:
"Partly because of its own actions or lack thereof, but also because of how it has been treated by stakeholders, Caltrans today is significantly out of step with best practice in the transportation field and with the state of California’s policy expectations. It is in need of modernization—both in the way it sees its job and how it approaches that job—and of a culture change that will foster needed adaptation and innovation."
"Demands and expectations on Caltrans have also changed since the Interstate-building era. As early as 1972, when Caltrans was formed out of the Department of Highways, there were calls for more multimodalism and less reliance on auto-mobility. More recent passage of state planning goals in AB 857 (2002) and transportation greenhouse gas reduction strategies SB 375 (2008), signal a need for Caltrans to support reductions in auto travel via low transportation-demand land use patterns. These outcomes are precisely the opposite of what Caltrans was set up to do—foster higher auto-mobility—and the department has not adapted to them. At the same time, Californians are driving less, a trend that creates optimism for achieving state planning and policy goals and that should allow for less spending on highway capacity. Other expectations that have developed since the Interstate-building era include concerns for economic and environmental justice, livability, and economic development. New technologies in planning and operations, and expectations of mode choice have all complicated Caltrans’ world."
http://calsta.ca.gov/res/docs/pdfs/2013/SSTI_Independent%20Caltrans%20Review%201.28.14.pdf
Sinai, that meeting was a set-up, engineered in advance to produce a particular result. Set-up, nothing more. They closed the door just as fast as they could and announced it wasn't a viable option. Questionable data, no thorough analysis, basically, the engineers and bureaucrats who live off highway construction ambushed a sales rep. And they couldn't have done it without the city being in on it. Highway robbery.
Thank you, 12:40. Documents like that are exactly what I'm asking for.
Oh, so it was Caltrans that allowed an alternative to be looked at? How diligent, even-handed and fair of them. And what a look! Like you'd get from a speeding car. At night. In the trunk.
Yawn, a couple residents of Pacifica looked into this right after Peebles Quarry vote was defeated.
Caltrans said the city engineering department asks Caltrans to come out and do a traffic count they take the data back to the office and fix the lights.
The traffic is messed up with Vallemar school and not going back to zone schools. You live in Linda Mar you go to Linda Mar school. Simple!
Now you have parents driving the kids back and forth across town to go to Vallemar and Lacy School.
Simple problem simple solution.
141, not that simple. Its a regional issue, plus growth. The light timing has been considered and any additional significant improvement ruled-out. Interesting point, moving the school at Vallemar to somewhere may become a future issue.
A whole lot of traffic dumps into and out of that highway 1, Rockaway and Vallemar intersection area. The additional access and exit roads within the 1.3 miles should improve traffic flow quite a bit. (In viewing other roads, this kind of road transition seems to be common construction.) The freak-out comes from the NIMBIES, who really would prefer a 2-lane road on a flat earth, but then they would worry even more about sea level rising.
Yes, the schools really impact the evening commute, too. They should close earlier. Next!
Bob Pilgrim's photo was posted without permission, and it in no way condones the position or activities of this blog.
Post a Comment