Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Term Limits Results


CITY OF PACIFICA MEASURE V - TERM LIMITS FOR CITY COUNCIL (50%+1)
Completed Precincts: 29 of 29
Vote Count Percentage
YES 4,962 51.4%
NO 4,695 48.6%

17 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

I ended up voting for this, but I have to admit I thought there was no chance of it passing when Bernie Sifry proposed it, and strongly suggested to him that he not waste his time. Smart move by Bernie to ignore me, and congratulations to Bernie and Deborah for their persistence in pursing an idea they believe in.

Heather Tanner said...

Ironically, the thing I heard most from people was, "if we don't like someone, we'll just vote him out. Why eliminate our choices?" Pretty sure that has already been answered by these election results. :)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the large field of candidates showed again how name recognition and fundraising ability favors incumbents -- even if one runs away from forums and questions.
Now we have a limiter--a very good thing.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, the thing I heard most from people was, "if we don't like someone, we'll just vote him out. Why eliminate our choices?" Pretty sure that has already been answered by these election results. :)

Or maybe the election results indicate that given a free choice, Pacificans preferred Digre and Vreeland to most of the challengers?

Anonymous said...

Thank God this passed. No matter what, the corrupt Vreeland regime will finally be over after this newest term. He's been coning everyone into believing his B.S. for years. He can con no more. But we STILL have to put up with him for just a little longer.... I hope he doesn't do TOO much damage during his last term... (I just love the way that sounds, 'his LAST term'!!!)

Anonymous said...

You're wrong, Anonymous 3:39. The term limits measure will allow Vreeland to serve 2 terms, another one after this one. The measure did not make this his last term.

Anonymous said...

C'mon, let's not let facts get in the way of a good, incoherent rant.

mike bell said...

Proof we need term limits: Vreeland ("their liar").

Anonymous said...

It appears that people wanted Term Limits to get rid of ONE person. How petty and vindictive? How much money was spent and by whom to get this on the ballot? To keep ONE person off of the council (after 2 more terms). And apparently more people like Vreeland than don't since he was elected for another term. These people behind Term Limits had such little confidence in their own voting constituency's ability to not reelect Vreeland had to get something on the ballot they could WIN. Hence Term Limits. So after Vreeland leaves, are you going to repeal Term Limits? Astonishing.

Term Limits to Stay said...

"These people behind Term Limits had such little confidence in their own voting constituency's ability to not reelect Vreeland had to get something on the ballot they could WIN. Hence Term Limits."

You got that right. Look at this state. Hopefully the trend will spread statewide. California owes 138 Billion. No "Repeal" of Term Limits in the future please, for Pacifica.

mike bell said...

"It appears that people wanted Term Limits to get rid of ONE person. How petty and vindictive?"
Only a petty and vindictive person would see it that way.
The goal was to legally get rid of a sociopath (even if it takes two more terms). Vreeland has done incalculable harm to Pacifica by pandering to a small but staunch group of people who hoard power through poverty, brokeness and faux environmentalism. An economically vibrant and well run Pacifica is beyond their ability to control, therefore they will never let it happen.
Len and Maryanne all you have to do is be thoughtful,principaled and brave. Good community minded people will step forward and honorably support you.

Steve Sinai said...

I don't think term limits was meant as a back-door way to get rid of the current council. That was my suspicion at first, and it's why I wasn't crazy about the idea when I first heard it proposed. But after talking to Bernie multiple times about term limits, I believe he genuinely feels we'll have a more responsive and responsible local government with term limits. (I do think Deborah was kinda' mad at Julie about the West Sharp Park Committee, though, so that may have been a motivating factor for Deborah.)

When I voted for it, I wasn't thinking about Vreeland or Digre or anyone else. I just felt that we've been poorly served by too many council-members over the last 25+ years who felt their job involved nothing more than showing up at meetings, and who endlessly kept putting off hard decisions. It's better not to wait until we hit some kind of crisis before we decide City Hall needs fresh ideas.

Anonymous said...

Kinda mad? You think?

Scotty said...

If/when Mary Ann and Len start to get things moving in the right direction but get termed out and replaced by someone like Nancy Hall and Leo Leon, we should revisit this topic.

mike bell said...

All eco-systems need balanced amounts of in-flow and out-flow in order to stay healthy. Career politicians were never the intent of our founders. Witness the stagnation of our city.
Terming out is a good thing, no matter who's in charge.

Scotty said...

I disagree. Terming out someone who starts to pull this city out of the ditch it's in is a very bad thing.

If history's any guide, we won't have to worry about, though.

Anonymous said...

Not much of a dream team. Get ready for the excuses. I don't think we'll need to repeal term limits in Pacifica. 8 years is plenty for anybody.