 |
| Recall City Council Booth... |
They went on to thank me and signed the petition. There were also some young students not able to vote and not from this area, but I was enlightened that the younger generation was taking so much interest. Then there were those who eagerly signed the petition because they either had personal negative feedback and were fed up period. And then there were those who read the Pacifica Tribune or watched Channel 26 and were equally fed up with the lack of development and continued loss of revenue.
There were those who were upset with the appointment of a former councilperson who was previously recalled who was absent at last Monday's city council meeting so once again the Oddstad Assisted living development was continued to the June 11 meeting, I'd suggest that everyone be there to support this project as it will bring in up to $1 million in permits plus taxes and create jobs. Besides, it is a much-needed service since a great portion of citizens are senior.We already have three senior centers here with no assisted living complex.
The number of people who attend the City Council meetings make the difference. An example was the 72 people who showed up in support of the Resource Center. I can't emphasize how important your presence. Make a point to put this on your calender and be there if you want to make a difference. You can also make a difference by signing our petitions, despite the fact they have set us back by six weeks with nit-picking the signatures, making us take down our sign on private property and trying to derail us from getting signatures at the Senior Center. I believe in my constitutional rights and so should you. The recall is going forward. Thank you to those that are already gathering signatures and those of you who already signed.
Editor's Note: When the Tribune made inquiries, both the City Manager and Ginny Jaquith informed us that when she was first appointed, Jaquith was up front that she already had prior, unchangeable travel plans for that particular Council meeting night so staff had ample opportunity to inform the Assisted Living project folks well in advance of the continuance."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
51 comments:
I had a really fun day talking to people and collecting signatures with Therese Sunday. Almost every person we talked to was positive about the recall. 95% of Pacificans I talked with thought this city needs to change course from the anti development, anti business, pro tax platform of Sue Digre and Pete Dejarnett.
Please tell us how many signatures you've collected to date, we want to see how far your self-delusion goes!
Now now Sue, you just calm down and take a hike (off the pier.)
Anon 1011, show us the credible research that proves citizens cost cities more revenue than they take in. I keep hearing that from anti-growth people, but have yet to find substantiating research online.
Guess you skipped over the 955 comment by Hutch where he said: "95% of Pacificans I talked with thought this city needs to change course from the anti development, anti business, pro tax platform of Sue Digre and Pete Dejarnett."
These 95% of people encountered during petition signature gathering know this city needs substantial economic improvement. Why? Because they/we live here with all the consequences of preventable 10 year anti-growth policies. They/we are not in denial, whereas from your "give us the numbers" question/comment you may be.
Pete DeJarnatt and Sue Digre are accountable for the long recession of this city. Let them be recalled. And if others want to help gather petition signatures, contact Therese as soon as possible.
At the very least we are talking to 1000's of voters and making them aware of the seriousness of our budget problems. Surprisingly many people did not realize how bad off we are. And hopefully they will elect two pro "progress" candidates in November.
I did some research about a year ago in regards to the question of whether housing cost cities more revenue than they take in.
It turned out that in some cities they were an expense, and in others they were a source of revenue.
I googled the topic of housing costs and revenues and found a few good sites, such as this one which gives a good overview:
http://www.elcr.org/resources/R21.html
Of particular interest was this quote:
"residential development in any area invariably leads to increased per capita demand for publicly provided services. This places increased burdens on local infrastructure and public agencies which then raise local tax rates to provide such additional services. Increased taxation always follows growth."
Would anyone involved in this recall effort mind providing us an update?
How many signatures have you collected at this point? If I remember, 4000 or so are needed to get the recall on the ballot.
Also, when is the deadline for obtaining the necessary signatures?
Thanks in advance.
Ian, thanks for the COCS link (a document by Allen M. Prindle and Thomas W. Blaine) which actually refers to farmlands, aka the "urban fringe" (not my name). The Prindle and Blaine document you supplied opens the beginning of a better discussion.
The acronym COCS means Cost of Community Services. U Illinois Extension divides COCS land usage into 1) residential, 2) commercial/industrial and 3) farmland/openspace. In these studies, however, only residential cost vs revenue is considered a net loser (the actual numbers indicate its a wash). This revenue comes from taxes and government (the actual numbers indicate its a wash).
In our metropolitan area, Pacifica has open space not much farmland. Schools and transportation receive money based upon a population ratio and other suburban factors. Sales taxes lag because of inadequate commercial/industrial infrastructure in this city. And for 25 years although we had a redevelopment zone we didn't build to produce that benefit and tax revenue. Top 10 employers includes 2 School Districts, the City, North County Water District, 2 grocery stores, 1 pharmacy, 1 department store-- oops.
"...how many signatures you've collected at this point?" Chris Fogel, 9:41 am.
Chris, I think volunteer recall workers are not interesting in responding to a premature head count. Less than 30 days into recall signature collection, why would anyone care to respond. I think collection of signatures is a 120 day process (4 months, please correct that if the timeline is incorrect).
But, did you also post the Anonymous 5/19, 10:11 am comment ending in "...we want to see how far your self-delusion goes!" If so, why would anyone care to respond to your inquiry.
Of course, this brings up a good point, again those interested in advancing the recall with their personal labor, contact Therese. As you've pointed-out collecting over 4000+ signatures is not easy to accomplish, and the more people that participate the better the odds are of reaching the needed higher numbers.
Thanks for responding, Kathy.
I only made my one prior post, under my name and not anonymously.
I only ask about the numbers because I've read updates from those involved both here and in the Tribune, but I'm just genuinely curious about the hard counts they coming up with.
I'm also wondering what date they need to come up with the threshold by to qualify for the ballot. Or perhaps the recall is a special election independent of previously-scheduled elections.
I used to know this stuff, but I'm afraid my memory isn't what it used to be.
Jeez, it's not like asking for a birth certificate, is it?
I have to say this idea that we are losing money on single family households being built is a ridiculous one. First of all it's not true. Second of all most of our budget comes from individual property taxes. Without them we would have no police, fire, public works ect..This is just some made up crap from the granola eating, Pete Loeb loving, NIMBY's who opposed the Quarry Project.
No granola for me thanks. It doesn't matter where most of our city budget has historically come from because it has never been enough. A succession of councils has used legal accounting loopholes to balance the budget and fund projects for decades. Those loopholes are gone and the economy is in tatters. Solvency is going to depend on commercial (retail) development) not single family residential. Neither one is in our immediate future, but bankruptcy could very well be. The scary part is that we seem to have a council in denial and unable or unwilling to act decisively to save this city from insolvency.
The biggest falsehood in Pacifica budget and growth debate is that houses do not pay their own way.
Fact: houses pay a huge part of Pacifica's budget and without property tax in general and specifically house property taxes, we would be flat broke.
See city adopted budget 2011-12 http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4400
Total budget $26.3M
Rev from property taxes $10.2M
Sales tax rev. $1.4M
Rev from "other taxes" $5.3M
If houses paid their own way, then the amount the city gets from property taxes would be about as much as the total city budget.
The previous comment makes no sense.
It's been shown that new residential development does not pay its own way in terms of the new property taxes it generates vs. the cost of providing services to that new development. That's completely different from saying that existing houses pay property taxes and that's an important part of the city budget. Whether residential property taxes pay for the total cost of city services to all the existing houses is an open question. If houses pay their own way, then the property taxes they generate are greater than the cost of providing services to them.
Bottom line, combined tax revenues have never been enough to pay Pacifica's bills. We limped along for decades on fancy accounting and government handouts. Those "loopholes" and the handouts are gone, along with the housing market and most of our developable land. Gone. Chickens have come home to roost.
Anonymous said...
It's been shown that new residential development does not pay its own way in terms of the new property taxes it generates vs. the cost of providing services to that new development.
==============
How absurd. Is this in most cases? Some cases? Any cases? It's easy to make a statement. Let's see some proof. I think a lot depends on location and the city. Sure some town in the midwest it might be true. But in a small town with little crime and high property taxes I doubt it is true.
Anonymous said...
If houses paid their own way, then the amount the city gets from property taxes would be about as much as the total city budget.
---------------
No it wouldn't. And that's because the city spends money like it's water. If we brought union contracts inline with what average taxpayers get in compensation then we would have a huge surplus.
The proof is all over the internet. I can't be bothered playing this silly game.
Like I said, it's easy to make false statements without proof. I looked online and found nothing to support it.
Ian Butler posted a link in this very thread and even quoted it. If you can't find that, then you can't find anything.
LMAO
Do new homes pay for themselves?
Let's throw the ideology out the window for a second.
The real answer is some do and some don't, it depends on the value. A home paying property taxes on a $1,000,000 value certainly pays for itself. A home paying on $150,000 probably doesn't.
Each development (however large or small) should be judged individually.
The Connemara development is an example. The homes in that development are all contributors (not a drain) to the tax base.
Not hard to find if you really want to find it.
Literature summary here:
http://www.landtrustalliance.org/conservation/landowners/annotated-bibliography-benefits-land-conservation
"Residential land uses often cost communities more than they generate in revenues."
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/Essays/COCS%20paper%200910.pdf
"the residential sector imposes more costs on counties and school corporations combined than it pays in revenues"
http://www.smgreenbelt.org/BenefitsEconomics.htm
"Residential lands do not provide enough tax revenues for the county, schools and special districts to cover the costs of public services. For every $1.00 in tax revenue, $1.26 is required to provide services."
and so forth and so on ...
Ha, that link Ian Butler posted was far from conclusive.
And Anon 8:12, Swing and a miss. A bunch of weak examples of statements taken out of context.
Wow this really is religion to some anti development folks.
Sure in some cases single falily homes can cost the local government more than the taxes they generate. But not in an area of the country with some of the highest home values and property taxes. And especially not in a town with little serious crime or issues that large cities have.
So go back to the interwebz and find something about Pacifica losing money or shut your pie hole.
And wow Anon 8:12, really? You privided some weak examples about Texas and Indiana. Really? Funny.
Rural land economics "literature" Anon 8:12 am.
Thus again, the allegory of rural land, agricultural economics imposed upon our metropolitan region as an equivalent is wishful thinking. As Hutch said "weak", not equivalent, the same as the mythological of "our environment is our economy".
If the ultimate economic theme is humans cost money and you're against that, it seems worldwide birth control should be included in eco-ideology. Humans cost money, but humans spend money. Also, City, State and Federal monies subsidize "open space" parks and agriculture land services (nice but generally not much "bang for the buck.")
The use of money for this city is better described in the 5/31/12 Parcel tax funding article. The gap I discovered in that easy to understand San Mateo County government article is: this city needs to produce more revenue. The county sends our city 17% of paid parcel tax monies to be spent by our city General Fund, but the value to this city is 39% of the total General Fund expenditure. That tells me the city isn't doing its job to produce city revenue, by more than 2X. Yet it seems city taxes and fees are already very high, so that leaves the need for more development to produce smart revenue from residential and/or retail sources.
You got buyers for these places that may or may not pay their own way? No you don't and without buyers in the market you won't have builders for single-family- home types of development. We need destination retail or some quirky dotcom looking for its own town. Housing growth and improvement could follow but post-crash it's about condos, townhouses and apts.
Did Connemara ever sell-out? How long did they take in those good old days?
http://www.fodorandassociates.com/rpts_and_pubs.htm
http://www.fodorandassociates.com/Reports/COG_WA_2000_Exec_Sum.pdf
Columbia Policy Report Executive Summary: The Cost of Growth in Washington State
"sprawling development patterns rarely generate sufficient revenues from the new tax revenues they produce to pay their ongoing costs of public
services."
"even standard urban development patterns that include a mix of commercial development have been found to be a net fiscal drain on local governments."
"A nationwide study of the 248 largest counties examined per-capita spending to indicate
likely impacts of growth rates on local taxes (Ladd, 1994). The study found that capital
expenditures increased markedly for all increases in growth rate. The report states:
“Clearly, population growth puts significant pressure on capital budgets as communities struggle to
increase their investment in roads, water and sewer systems, and public buildings.” The report
concludes that, not only does population growth increase per-capita tax burdens, it also
tends to have a short-run effect of reducing local service quality.
Everything costs more here including the cost of services so even if some few houses pay their way there is still going to be a big short-fall and we still have a problem. Worse in Pacifica? Yes, but too late to change the underlying problem of decades-old poor land use and highway decisions. Lots of people like it that way.
I pay $8,000 in property taxes for a recently purchased home. Any of you jokers and bickerers want to tell me I don't pay my own way?
Prop. 13 makes you pay much more in property taxes than your neighbors with similar houses who have lived in them for a long time. You're paying your own way a lot more than they are.
Anonymous 12:51 pm, the Fodor consultant Columbia Policy Institute Report (10/2000) from Bellevue, WA is better than the other documents we've seen. In another Report (4/2001), Fodor indicates the cause of the financial inadequacy was that cities and counties were not for the most part collecting development impact fees they were entitled to, Introduction, paragraph 1. Note: These studies were presented more than 12 and 11 years ago. In any event, the literature presented supports "growth and increases taxes". The variables reside in the states of Oregon and Washington States. Been there much? The growth areas discussed may be more rural, the tax rates are different.
Anon 12:54 pm, you seem to advocate for the "we can do nothing argument" and you may also be part of the agendized coalition that caused the economic imbalance in this city. The City General Plan consultants said at their meeting last year: we must develop the quarry, we should develop Beach Boulevard, we should build-up infill properties. We can do that much, along with taking advantage of all smart development opportunities-- and, the city should be prospecting for these (finding ways to welcome developers). No, we do not all like living with the continued deteriorating infrastructure of Pathetica, with downward status quo plateaus offered in the form of more fees and taxes.
Houses in the quarry isn't the answer, particularly not today. Something else there like premium outlets, a Target or Trader Joe's, Lowe's or Home Depot for the soon-to-be connected coast, maybe all those...that would be acceptable to many Pacificans. Not popular with what's left of local business of course, but it's clear we need the on-going tax revenue and the jobs if we want to be a city.
anon@158, you're paying $6000 more than I am and I thank you. I wonder how much the city spends on the average household.
No Kathy, I do not share the "we can do nothing" view and I am definitely not one of the undead. I just find your preoccupation with housing (single fam) as a solution to Pacifica's problems very unrealistic. That's all.
We can certainly agree on the need for more revenue.
Every development has to be evaluated for it's specific situation and time.
For instance, the Peebles development would (theoretically) have contained a mix of residential and commercial. The thinking at the time was that the commercial side would bring in money for the city and the residential side would bring in money for the developer. (The ensuing housing crash has of course changed that equation). It was in the city's best interest to keep the housing element low, and the 265 unit plan was too many for most voters. 100 or so units would probably have passed.
The assisted living center might be a different story altogether, providing jobs and pumping money into the local economy that straight residential would not provide. I'm not sure if it would be a net drain or not, but the equation is certainly different from the standard residential model.
Ultimately the question is really about what kind of community we want to be. But as we answer that question we must avoid assuming that more development automatically means more cash.
I agree we need more revenue. But residential development is not going to get us that, only commercial will. The problem is that commercial development is a long way off. And large-scale commercial is extremely unlikely, especially in this economy and especially on the quarry site. There are significant regulatory hurdles to development there. Smaller-scale commercial development seems much more do-able and more likely, on the quarry site and elsewhere. But we currently have large amounts of commercial vacancies. We could do so much for our local economy so much sooner if we focused on filling those vacancies. Why is nobody talking about that as a way to "fix Pacifica"?
Anonymous said...
Houses in the quarry isn't the answer, particularly not today. Something else there like premium outlets, a Target or Trader Joe's, Lowe's or Home Depot
There's not enough population or traffic for any big stores like those here
We can't keep saying "no house in my backyard". We can't be picky, we need whatever we can get
the number of housing units in the Peebles ballot measure was 355
Pacifica doesn't need a big population to support a premium outlet mall. Those attract people from miles around.
No Anonymous 3:13 pm, I said residential, with no single family preoccupation whatsoever. If you are not one of the "undead", and you agree we need more revenue what kind of revenue would you envision? Anonymous 2:56 pm has mentioned some potential businesses for the quarry, "premium outlets, a Target or Trader Joe's, Lowe's or Home Depot", which would reasonably provide maximum tax revenue and some jobs. Good. If the Bank and a developer are willing BUILD IT NOW. The "cannot do, and must wait until the bank and developers give-up and the land defaults to 'open space' (take the tax break)" mission in this city is nuts!
Ian 3:46 pm, better to have nothing than a quality mix-use development? Looking back at the Quarry opportunity 2006, Peebles had in mind to build the mixed-use commercial/retail component first. The residential (apartments, condos, possibly 1/3 single family) would have been built last. 355 units was the maximum number stated in the city general plan, hence the maximum number stated in the ballot measure. Housing units built would have been worked-out in planning (and this city knows how to chop, chop).
Opportunity lost, again. Pacifica would have gained revenue from a needed ongoing stream of income from both commercial and residential. Residential would have provided more assurance of mixed-use village success. Peebles would have built a quality project. Somewhere in between the developer corporation, and builders would have earned a well deserved profit (we hope). There would have been jobs for some tradesmen and others during this severe economic downturn (other San Mateo cities have been building). Ian, you also said "we must avoid assuming that more development automatically means more cash." Well, the city gained almost zero, a 6 year "food fight", and a continued anti-development reputation. The right kind of development adds business synergy, which begets more business, more jobs, more productivity, more money. The 2006 quarry proposal was that. Some of you and your chosen city council members (including DeJarnatt and Digre) worked very hard in advance to throw away that opportunity. What a loss for all of us personally and for this city!
355 was never stated in the general plan. the general plan did not state a number. Peebles picked that number to maximize the value of the land.
"Peebles picked that number to maximize the value of the land." What a load of bullshit! 355 was a number he would have loved to have but Peebles wasn't a stupid man and knew he would probably end up with something closer to 225. Every project concerning housing has been cut significantly by the eco-radical planning commission and council. The argument that we would end up looking like Daly City is old and worn. Revisionist historians in this town thing we all forget what actually happeded. Not just with the quarry, but with Rick Lee, Tate Cowen, and every other project. They were forced to "negotiate" with those pukes from FOP. They would come to an understanding then get stabbed in the back anyway. I lay the blame for our fiscal mess directly on the doorsteps of Verby, Bohner, Hall, and most of all, Curtis, head puke. Where have they been with their brilliant plans! Hiding in their Hobbit holes I imagine. Come on out FOP so we can play Whack a mole. Defend your grand plans for Pacifica. Am I pissed? You bet your ass I'm pissed!
"we must avoid assuming that more development automatically means more cash."
One thing you can be sure of is that no development means no cash.
Name calling anon 951, you're right Peebles wasn't and isn't stupid. Bet he thanks his lucky stars that he wasn't caught in this backwards town by the bursting housing bubble and the global financial meltdown. The guy knew the risks and structured the deal to make money build or no build and that's what he did.
And all this piffle about what should be built there is just talk.
Housing market is gone. Could retail work there? Big names might pull in enough from Daly City and HMB but that will further damage other Pacifica biz. What do we gain from that? Premium outlet center sounds great but the quarry is an expensive and over-regulated site and that's not typical outlet center real estate. Still, that's my fav. They come, they shop, they go home and precious Pacifica can go on sleeping.
Fire a couple city hedge hogs and hire a first rate economic development person. With CA experience, preferably coastal. Experienced with commercial development. Commercial first! Be done with the planning commission and take apps for a development and planning commission. We'd still be late to the party but at least we could get in the door.
Speaking of no development means no cash, WTH is going on with the assisted living project? Last council meet did someone from the opposition ask for another delay? How many months do we expect the developer to hang around? Senior housing of all types is a natural for Pacifica. These delays are outrageous.
Post a Comment