Pacifica Tribune Letters-to-the-Editor, 5/15/12. "Then why is the city broke?" by Dave Ahlquist
"Editor: These self-congratulatory columns by Councilwomen Sue Digre always lead off with the yarn "our environment is our economy."
 |
| Thus it was that Pacificans ate their economy, picking-up trash rather than cash. |
So Sue, the happy talk environment equals economy might make you feel good, but it's not true.
You have been on Council since 2002 -- 10 years now -- and what is your legacy? A city budget so dysfunctional that the best you can do this year is pass a half year budget. Structural deficits for your entire 10 years on council. A surplus city sewer plant property on Palmetto that remains a vacant hole in the ground even though you "championed" the "prime real estate" in 2002.
And the real capper, on your watch the city budget is so upside down City Council threatens the service of last resort for low-income residents, the Resource Center, with budget cuts. To defend the Resource Center and its clients of families, kids and single mothers, 72 people attended the last council meeting to face council down. Shame on you."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
11 comments:
You need to place blame in the right place. I have always advocated charging for beach parking but I know many citizens who don't want to charge and they voted for Digre.
If I, a taxpayer, is paying for maintaining lindamar beach, I should have a say about how decisions are made along with the rest of the citizens, but unfortunately I lost.
I don't want snowy plovers taking over. I want to charge for parking. I want firepits and more garbage cans. I want city workers to maintain and clean beach , not park rangers. This beach used to be a dumping ground for garbage and dead bodies and the wildlife still survived. Using the 'we are going to die if people are allowed to use the beach for recreation' slogan is a big fat lie. No one on city council will take the right steps toward capitalizing off of our beaches. This is where I and the city council part. The beaches are part of our economy, but let's face it the hikers and bird watchers don't spend money in pacifica. The beach picnic'ers do and will always spend money in pacfica by buying food and drinks, surf lessons and fishing.I have yet to see anyone on City Council or Chamber of Commerce assist in capitalizing off of our beaches.It's like they never go to the beach and don't see what is happening. Digre needs to get out of Mazzetti's bakery.. Nihart needs to get out of the Restaurants. Stone needs to get off his skate board. De Jarnet needs to stop hanging out with political allies and see what the out of towners are doing on the beach. They could all use fresh air and exercise.
What's his name is a surfer but he is gone. I am pretty sure his surfer friends, his constituents, do not want to pay for parking. This linda mar beach could be a huge money maker with no development needed , just visitors, but nooooooooo....they would rather the pensioners and union workers suffer the constant blaring from some of how they need to be let go, lose their jobs and lose their pension. Class warfare is here to stay. Good luck with all that.
Dear Anonymous,
Linda Mar State Beach is operated by the City of Pacifica under permit from the California Coastal Commission.
Basically, the City's hands are tied by a Commission that exerts such tight control over the beach that the City was threatened with a Coastal Act violation merely for placing a chain across the parking lot entrance in order to close it on evenings.
You should also read up on the Commission's responses to Pacifica's attempts over the years to do exactly what you're demanding the City should do.
Otherwise, nice rant.
Then we need to put together a team to fight the coastal commission that should not be around today.
The Coastal Commission is WRONG. and there are many ignorant pacificans who will blindly support what they say. Time to expose them. Evil environmentalists who think they are better knowing because they have a degree in activism. Give me a break. Your days are coming to an end. That's is where the war will be fought. Blue Collar workers vs Elitest environmentalists.
Remember this;
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Jim Vreeland steps back
I am both concerned and puzzled by Councilmember Vreeland not making decisions or voting on council issues that may involve the federal government, in particular, his reasoning in stepping down and not participating in discussions concerning the apartment buildings that are in jeopardy of collapse.
This behavior presumably is caused by Mr. Vreeland working for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I say presumably because Mr. Vreeland has not disclosed the terms under which he has to step back from decisions. The EPA gets involved in a lot off issues on the coastside. The rest of the federal government broadly gets involved in almost everything else in town. Neither the rest of council nor staff have said anything about this stepping back.
So, have we lost a councilmember on key issues? We now have only 4 dealing with critical issues and one--Vreeland--on the sideline?
What about the EPA employees on the planning commission? Have these commissioners also taken themselves out of decisions, like all environmental impact reports, that may involve the federal government? At least one PC commissioner is an EPA lawyer, so he should know the rules. Does he step back?
What about Vreeland's aggressive support of the now defunct biodiesel refinery? He supported that, even traveled to testify at the Coastal Commission and the federal government was deeply involved in that project. He didn't step down on that project. Is this a selective application of a "rule" we don't know about?
So, what are the step down rules. Do they apply to planning commissions? How does the public feel about a councilmember no longer representing the voters on all issues before council?
Sharon O'Brien
Posted by Fix Pacifica at 1:33 PM
and then there was this article;
http://www.examiner.com/article/county-supervisors-ditch-pacifica
"The fight over Commission seats often comes down to the development interests versus the environmental interests. The Commission is often viewed by developers and real estate interests as the roadblock to developing much of California’s coastline as the Commission has the final say in permitting most construction."
"That's is where the war will be fought. Blue Collar workers vs Elitist environmentalists." Anonymous 3:29 pm
Weird comment Anon 329. Consider that some elitist "evil" environmentalist are Blue Collar workers. Hence, guess that means: some Blue Collar workers should wage war on themselves?
Is the Coastal Commission really the cause of seeming city foot-dragging or reluctance to charge fees for parking at Linda Mar Beach? Maybe not. As a Pacifican 1) do you actually want to pay for beach parking there; and 2) do you also think some visitors to that beach won't park in an already crowded nearby "free" parking lot, or just move on (out of Pacifica)?
Why not continue our "easy living" style while improving conditions for this city. Keep beach parking "free" but develop 1) Beach Boulevard (in process), 2) the Assisted Living Center (almost in process), 3) other reasonable infill projects, and of course 4) the 88 acre quarry. These developments potentially represent streams of income (cash cows) needed to sustain our city. Some people will gain jobs with shorter commuting; all of us will gain nearby commerce.
The truth is that this city can't actually make any money off beach parking because the law says any monies made must be spent by the city on the beach. As in maintenance, education, plover habitat improvements, enforcement of all the screw ball rules. Yes, we get to do the work, bear the liability for the protection of an endangered species (plovers), pay for our own parking, etc. And we're doing this for whom? The State. So give it back to the state and let them deal with it and the Ca Coastal Commission. And toss in that dilapidated pier too. We can no longer pay for these freebies. Under state management they'll still be there and probably better run and maintained.
Kathy has a live one. One out of four. Assisted-living has a chance. The other three are snowballs in hell for this decade if ever.
"Snowball in hell" Anonymous (5/18, 8:16pm), your assessment of what I said (5/18, 8:11pm) is that of 4 project areas mentioned only the Assisted Living Center will be build. You may be correct, while the city continues to increase fees and taxes, outsource services, and the city continues to rot. Pacifica may decay from its own neglect prior to the "big wave" sweeping it out to sea. Meantime...
1. Beach Boulevard (a 1 block area) has a plan, general guidelines for development; and is undergoing a DEIR study currently. Utility replacement/overhead wire undergrounding for a streetscape is underway.
2. The Assisted Living project has completed Planning, but there is a challenge (2 eco-groups), and quorum delays at city council. If the developer can hold-out, the project may be built as you predict.
3. Other "reasonable infill projects" were not specified. The comment is neutral, except some of these projects have been approved, but need financing.
4. The 88 acre quarry. General Plan designation is retail/commercial/mixed-use. Stated as "must build" by the General Plan Consultants. Yes, developing the quarry to produce a better economy in this 60% open space city is a "no brainer". Yet for some of you its a "weeds not progress" Rubiks Cube. Got to ask yourself why you hold-on to such stubbornness, while by default by you curse the fate and future of this city.
Ah, but you're a dreamer Meeh. I'm going with experience and economic reality. You know one out of four is not too shabby when it means permanent jobs for Pacificans and more spending in many local businesses. Perhaps more of these smaller-scale senior projects will be drawn to Pacifica and our limited developable space. Doesn't hurt to dream.
"you're a dreamer" Anon 1:23 pm
We'll see. Its called "vision", and the city is showing some intention to move forward. One at a time projects are something, but do not accomplish the synergy needed in developing larger parcels. Nor will such one at a time project limitations affect a paradigm shift to counter failed ideological thinking, ala "our environment is our economy".
Post a Comment