And may be in our neighborhoods.
San Francisco Chronicle/SF Gate/Katie Dowd, 4/5/16. "Coyote seen wandering SF elementary school playground."
 |
| You looking at me? |
Teachers are warning their young students that coyotes are not friendly dogs. If they see one, they should not approach it but instead tell an adult. Coyotes are growing increasingly common — and brazen — in San Francisco. Because of the long years of drought, Bay Area coyotes are having a harder time finding food and expanding their territory in search of it.
The first envoy of coyotes came to the Presidio in 2004, much to the surprise of animal control. Surveillance footage from the Golden Gate Bridge showed they were crossing the bridge from Marin in the wee small hours."
Related. Coyote Smarts, "... general guidelines", Wiki How, "method 1, 3,... noisemakers, like air horns and whistles.." Urban Coyote, "...while walking your dog." The Humane Society of the United States, "... attacks are rare." Note photograph from Coyote Yipps blog/Jane Kessler.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
21 comments:
Ooooo. I love the inclusion of "Open Space" in that alarming headline. What's next? Illegals camping in "Open Space". Zika Virus linked to "Open Space". Devil worshipers meeting in "Open Space".
"Unproductive" and "wasted" open space is harmful to Pacifica, children, and pets.
844 It's a total bummer and I hear it's excruciating for realtors and developers, too. Let's go wall to wall like Daly City and WIN!
852, City revenue: #1 Daily City; #20 Pacifica (last out of 20 San Mateo County cities). Wonder if there's any correlation to all that "wall to wall" unproductive open space?
Daly City has a broad range of commerce and retail centers; medical/dental/rehabilitation facilities; funding for city maintenance, roads, highways; a City Hall where civic meetings are held; the State DMV, a County Court house; a Community College; a wide range of housing; open and recreational space, etc. Daly City even manages our Fire Department District.
Pacifica, on the other hand, has "wall to wall" permanent open space in more than 50% of the City. And since "our environment is our economy", our city lags in maintenance and improvement of all categories mentioned.
The mantra against development in this City, and the #1 commerce revenue city in this County (Daly City), is another faux environmentalist (aka: NIMBY) mythology (lie) which continues to harm and pollute City function against the benefit of our citizens, (and that is a great disservice to the people who live here).
What? We have less revenues than even Portola Valley?
How is that possible?
We need to fire every single city council member today if it is.
805, your conclusion is "fire the messengers" (current city council), rather than expose the source of the intrinsic obstruction: 35 years of NIMBY interference in the economic balance of this City?
Isn't it time you NIMBIES help mitigate the serious structural deficiencies you have caused in crippling the developmental, infrastructure and social integrity of this City? Come on.. we all live here.
BTW, the latest 20 city study was completed by government (San Mateo) last year, as reported in Council discussion by Councilmember Mary Ann Nihart. This information was not different from a separate (similar criteria, less extensive) study I made 10 years prior. The data is based upon General Fund per capita revenue.
Thank you for quieting the naysayers Kathy.
So what is Pacifica's "General Fund per capita revenue"?
Please post the study Mary Ann referred to so everyone can read it.
Pacifica does not have less revenues than Portola Valley. The key words are per capita revenue. Pacifica has much more revenue than Portola Valley. Pacifica also has many more people. In 2014 Pacifica total revenues were $48.1 million and Portola Valley revenues were $5.98 million. Pacifica's population is 39,088 and Portola Valley's population is 4,462. On a per capita basis (revenues per resident), Portola Valley has more revenues per capita ($1340) than Pacifica ($1230). But Pacifica has roughly 8 times the revenue as Portola Valley and 9 times the population so the revenues per capita are slightly less for Pacifica than for Portola Valley.
https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/finance-explorer/view-by-city
1011 seriously, if you're interested do your own research. Oh, and let us know your findings.
1023, as you say "Pacifica has roughly 8 times the revenue as Portola Valley and 9 times the population". That should be an advantage to this City, plus there is our gateway to the coast location.
But, those advantages are not what has happened. NIMBISM which took control for decades, has crippled our balanced City potential.
Even with the recently proposed (minimalist) Quarry development (75% permanent open space, 25% development), NIMBIES fight that.
And, from their various comments, it's doubtful these NIMBIES (individually or as a cabal) even care whether there is a City (this city, our entire community). The result, our City continues to limp along without adequate funding, dealing with periodic adverse surprises.
1023 You're using total revenues, not general fund revenues.
Pacifica's general fund revenues for 2014 were not $48.1 million, but a mere $28.2 million.
East Palo Alto had total revenues of $29.5 million on a population of 29,143 and $1012 per capita, way less than Pacifica.
12:03 I was using the same numbers that I could easily find, total revenue, to be able to compare Pacifica and Portola Valley, simply to correct the misstatement that Pacifica has less revenue than Portola Valley. You can also use general fund revenues and come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter. And you're right, using total revenues EPA had lower revenue per capita than Pacifica. You can figure it any way you want but the fact is that Pacifica does not have the lowest revenues of cities in San Mateo County. It may have the lowest general fund revenue per capita but not the lowest total revenue per capita. A quick search didn't turn up the study referenced earlier. If someone has a link, I'd appreciate it.
1203, 10 years ago, without the kind of development which has occurred there, East Palo Alto general fund per capita revenue was 12% higher than Pacifica.
Beyond that, I trust what Councilmember Nihart said in her discussion with City Council (which was similar and in keeping with my prior discovery).
Beyond the weeds of those numbers (which may have some variation), the point is that this City suffers from balanced economic neglect. And fortunately with this City Council (at least 4, not Keener from his last vote), economic development is the #1 goal.
What are you quoting that from Kathy?
"East Palo Alto general fund per capita revenue was 12% higher than Pacifica. "
1218 you're right there are several cities with lower revenues per capita than Pacifica, anyway you slice it.
319 those days, I went directly to the documents of the cities surveyed, and compared (as close as possible) like kind values. No quick internet program was available then.
Portola Valley may or may not have been part of the survey (don't remember)-- otherwise, the peninsula cities including East Palo Alto were included.
And since East Palo Alto was a known financially weak city at that time (similar to this City then and now), it was of some particular interest. Nevertheless, East Palo Alto had a 12% higher per capita revenue than this City.
Again, of all the San Mateo County cities surveyed, this City was #1 last or #20 last, however you wish to view that.
The link https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/finance-explorer/view-by-city doesn't classify by general fund revenues. It shows total revenues for every city in California, up through 2014. You can calculate per capita revenue by dividing total revenues by population.
Total revenues for EPA in 2014 were 29.5 M, population is 29,530, per capita total revenues = $999, much less than Portola Valley at $1340 or Pacifica at $1230. Daly City total revenues were 101.M in 2014, population was 106,094, per capita total revenues = $952, even less than EPA and much less than Pacifica or Portola Valley.
People complain a lot about Pacifica and pretend we don't have any money to spend but the reality is our per capita revenue has leapfrogged many San Mateo County cities.
The problem isn't we don't have any money. The problem is we spend more than we have.
East Palo Alto was the murder capital of the USA for a couple years. Now they have a new Home Depot, Ikea and 4 star hotel in Whiskey Gultch.
East Palo Alto knew they had a problem, studied the problems, found a solution and acted on it.
Pacifica knows what the problems are but city hall and city council are too busy playing kiss ass to their base voters. The very people who wrecked and decimated the City Of Pacifica.
949, this City Council majority brought-in an Economic Development and an Accountability Team. This City Council has been dealing with infrastructure inadequacies caused by prior NIMBY City Councils.
This City Council has a goals work plan, and the majority is attempting to achieve results through enhanced grant funding, and what little revenue this City has.
By contrast, prior to 2011 (election 2010), the NIMBY controlled City Councils had no goals, obstructed substantial Quarry development, and lost track of City Funds, etc.
The city council had goals really shitty ones
Bankrupt the town
give the authority to build on city properties to Skyfield usa
Build trails
lose 5 million dollars
1 million dollar frog ponds at the police station
many cost over runs at the police station
Free and East "COwboy" Scott Holmes
The all star bozo city councils
There has been no economic development and the 5 million is still missing, thus they are a failure also.
Tinfow has been less than truthful on the missing money, first it was we need a forensic audit, then it was like we figured it call off the dogs, now its like well we think we know where the money went. This city hall can not be trusted just like the previous administration down at city hall. All they have done is increased payroll and ran up city debt.
They get a big fat F in my book.
11:25
Current Council (except Digre and Keener) is just trying to repair many decades of dereliction of duty. The reign of Lancelle, Vreeland, deJarnutt and Digre is what really screwed up Pacifica. They ran an insider's club with their faux-enviro, obstructionist thugs and completely destroyed our economy and any ability to generate revenue. They either lacked the fundamental knowledge of how to run and fund a city or they just didn't care. Pacificans must never again allow this group to get a majority on Council. We've already seen what kind of damage they can do.
Post a Comment