Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Argument Against Measure V



Here we go again - another tax increase on the ballot, this one unnecessary and unfair.

We already pay extra taxes approved for the county, schools, city, community colleges and the state. Is this where and how you'd choose to raise your taxes? What about our schools?

Pacifica’s  Government always wants more money, threatening us unless we approve taxes. Pacifica's budget surplus is $1.4 million.  The state is no longer taking it's money. Rising property values means more local revenue. 

The City Council spent almost $60,000 on a costly special election, expensive campaign mailers promoting the new tax, and another outside consultant.  That could have funded a needed economic development coordinator.

We still pay what Pacifica's web site describes as "excellent" and "generous" compensation. 


Eighty-six employees and some retirees get over $100,000 a year. Instead of adjusting compensation to match our tax base, Pacifica borrowed to pay it's pension shortfall. 

* Many Pacificans are at the poverty level but are not exempt under Measure V. Others are exempt based on age, not ability to pay. This 60% tax increase hurts the single parents, unemployed, large families and disabled veterans among us. 

* Only residents, not visitors would pay this tax.

* Businesses are favored with a $500 annual cap. There is no cap for residents.

* This tax revenue would go into the General Fund and be spent on salaries. No programs are protected. Pacifica has over-promised what this tax can deliver.

* Do you really think this would be a "temporary tax"?

Pacifica operates too much in secret, withholding  information from the public. It hires too many outside consultants. Council subcommittees make the important decisions  behind closed doors.
 

Has it earned your trust in higher taxes? 

Join us, your neighbors of all political stripes, in voting NO on unfair, unnecessary Measure V.


Submitted by Tom Clifford

122 comments:

todd bray said...

Smells of Stechbart and Wagner. Doubt it convinces a single soul.

Hutch said...

We need to shoot this tax down. Make sure you get out and vote against this Albatross which is really harmful to families and lower income Pacificans costing them around $200 extra per year.

Then council needs to get serious and negotiate some real union concessions and a wage freeze. Our problem isn't that we don't have enough money. It's that we spend too much on wages and benefits. They made some minuscule cuts last year which didn't help anything.

We need to do what cities like Millbrae did before they come taxing the poor in Pacifica to pay $150,000 salaries.

"Millbrae employees helped shoulder the burden by accepting a 4.3 percent to 5 percent reduction in their salary." http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2013/06/millbrae-another-city-with-balanced.html

Anonymous said...

Eighty-six employees and some retirees get over $100,000 a year. Instead of adjusting compensation to match our tax base, Pacifica borrowed to pay it's pension shortfall.

The city sold bonds to try to refill the empty city workers pension account.

If I was a city employee past or present I would be extremely worried about the soundness of the city and would make other arrangements and not count on the city pension.

Can't say they were not warned!

Anonymous said...

12:56

Drive down El Camino Real in Millbrae. The Bowling alley is gone, the old Millbrae Lumber Building is gone. The shody buildings have been replaced with new condo's and commercial properties. They have a new Safeway.

Quit blaming Pacifica financial mess on the city salaries. That is the new battle cry of the "gang of no"

Anonymous said...

Yes we owe over 20 million in bonds for PERS pensions to be specific.

http://royceprinting.com/jobs/FOSarchive/2010FOS/05_06_10_PacificaFOS.pdf

Now they want a 30 million bond for the new library? These people are nuts.

Anonymous said...

This measure deserves to lose big for all the reasons Tom Clifford mentions. Don't let a couple of scheming councilmembers and their slick consultants get away with this crap. Vote no and make sure to personally campaign against it with everyone you know. Council is counting on a low turnout to get their simple majority. Get the vote out!

Anonymous said...

109 Kinda sorta. Calpers pensions are safe. The City of Pacifica is not. Instead of scamming the public with another tax this weak and irresponsible council should be cutting salaries. We need a 5% across the board pay cut, including public safety employees, followed by 3 to 5 years of no more than COLA increases, and no catch up. Should have been done 2 years ago, but better late than never. And, it's time to take an honest and open look at that police outsourcing proposal. That whole thing reeks. Air it out. No need for council to trouble themselves with it. Get an outside, clean evaluation of the merits.

Anonymous said...

110 Quit trying to make city salaries part of the growth/no growth war.
Millbrae has lots of new development, but they still cut salaries. Controlling payroll is good fiscal policy. Those generous raises during the boom days need to be trimmed. The boom days are over. Public employees should not be immune to the real payroll cuts caused by the recession we all went through.

Anonymous said...

That's right 2:28, this is one issue where almost all of Pacifica agrees. The Pro growthers and the no growthers united baby.

The sneaky way the city had secret meetings, did their fake poll, spent $60,000 of our money, threaten us with unsafe streets and service cuts without making any real effort to cut their own costs.

Hutch said...

Now they are saying police outsourcing is not viable in Pacifica BECAUSE of the 20 million bond we owe. The sheriff would not take over that bond payment so unlike the other cities that outsourced Pacifica would have less savings.

I say do it even if we break even.

Anonymous said...

signers opposed to this 70% tax increase.
Leo Leon [concern citizen], Tom Clifford [Former Planning commissioner], Barbara Ash [Business owner] Mary Neff [Retired Teacher] and Karen Rosenstein [Business owner]
Looks pretty broad based to me.

Anonymous said...

It figures. We're too broke and poorly run for the SMC Sheriff's Dept to mess with. I'm with Hutch. Just do it. Start breaking up this troop of clowns now. Council can't run this city so cut their work load.

Anonymous said...

Thank you to all of them! We'll put some votes behind you and the taxpayers won't have to pay for the effort!

Wagner said...

Bray, knock it off. Your not Curtis, stop trying to be him.
It's not attractive.

todd bray said...

Tom, it;'s too bad you didn't use your own words and arguments you've posted here. They are far more compelling than the Stechbart/Wagner mess that will be in the election materials.

Tom your words were simply, to the point and very persuasive. Unfortunately they got muddied up by a pair of ... well no need to sink to their level.

Anonymous said...

This argument does seem to have been a collaborative effort and weaker because of it. Is this what will appear on the ballot? It may prove to be unfortunate that the tired old bit about city employee salaries was used. It's a distraction. It may also be an issue too closely associated with the controversial Mr. Bray. Not everyone buys into it or wants to hear it. IMO, Tom's original was excellent. The key points he made were the unfair impact on our poorest residents and the fact that there are no guarantees this money will be used to protect vital services. It goes into the general fund rat hole. IMHO that last part should be the focus of any argument. It would particularly resonate with older voters who well remember the fire tax bait and switch scam.

So, where's the CofC on this measure? Right behind Stone? No official public position? Disappointing but maybe we're lucky they haven't take one.

Hutch said...

You had your chance to write your own ballot argument and didn't.

I agree city wages need to come down before they tax us more and I am no friggin NIMBY. It's not blaming employees. Cities all over the Bay Area are cutting wages so it's not such an outrageous notion.

I think the argument against measure V is just fine. Can we stop bickering over trivial points and agree that this tax is wrong? If I can join with Leo Leon against this thing anything can happen.

Anonymous said...

I don't need to be persuaded to vote against it and nothing in this world would get me to vote for it. This is a one-issue election for Pacifica voters. The important thing is to get the vote out. Tax measures pass in low turnout elections because of aggressive, targeted, well-funded campaigns. They lose when voters outside that target group show up at the polls. It costs nothing to remind your friends to vote against this scam. Love those absentee ballots!

Chris Porter said...

Todd..I find in my discussions with both Wagner and Stechbart (your way to identify them)that they are extremely knowledgeable on most political topics as well as most other topics. I think your problem with them is that they are usually not on your side.

Peace brother.

todd bray said...

Hutch, Tom's points were so superior to mine I never felt the need to do an argument against. And to be sure there are many who don't understand the difference between a payroll issue and a revenue issue. It's unfortunate that so many (seemingly) Anons don't use their real names. It hinders discussion, understanding and solutions.

Hopefully there will be a good turnout in November.

Anonymous said...

Good idea I'm going to request an absentee ballot for this one.

Anonymous said...

We have both problems, payroll and revenue. The worsening lack of revenue exacerbated what had been a tolerable payroll problem into a very serious issue. Council has been irresponsible and cowardly in dealing with the payroll issue, choosing instead to attempt to extort the taxpayers, once again. We need to defeat this tax measure, but that doesn't solve our payroll or revenue problem, or, even force council's hand to a just solution. They've made it clear their solution to the payroll problem is to cut jobs which means cuts to services and programs. Cuts which they'll tearfully blame on the voters. They seem to have no solution to the revenue problem beyond fees and taxes and fairytales. What a shock!

Tommy Taxed Too Much said...

It's a sad day when the board of the resource center comes out immediately in favor of this mess due to pressure from council. Can you imagine how it went? "If you don't endorse this, we will be forced to defund the Resource Center". How nice. Scare tactics.
Unfortunately, this tax will severly impact the very clientele that the Resource Center is charged to care for.
Unconscienceable that a council member would lobby the board like that.

Anonymous said...

Sneaky Pete, would always threaten the senior center and resource center if he didn't get his way.

Or skip the meeting.

Anonymous said...

That's terrible they use the resource center to get their tax passed.

At the same time they protect their buddy co-workers pay. "Don't worry we wont cut you anymore." Who is this council working for exactly? The employees or citizens? Time to take a big chunk out of councils pay and benefits.

Anonymous said...

732 Really? You got names and dates of this egregious incident, because I'd expect the PRC to publicly endorse this tax measure all on their own. They can read the tea leaves better than anyone. If Council really was stupid enough to leave its fingerprints all over the place, well, they needn't have bothered.
The list of endorsements for this thing will be the Mother of All Lists. I wonder which civic groups would be on a public list of those opposed?

Anonymous said...

Pacificans have a soft spot for the Resource Center. When they publicly endorse something it counts with the voters who trust them to do what is best for the people they serve. Keeping their city funding is probably the best thing they can do. When has their funding not been at risk?

Anonymous said...

It's pathetic that the NIMBYs want to say that it's only a payroll problem. They don't want to admit that we also have a revenue problem because they are in fact that problem. If they didn't oppose all revenue-producing projects, the city wouldn't be in such sorry shape.

Anonymous said...

Of course do you expect the nimbys noobees and hippies to come out and say, sorry Pacifica but we bankrupted you.

Anonymous said...

211 Yeah, but we seem to be having bigger problems than the arguably powerless Pacifica Nimbys. It's very clear the CCC is the group that can make or break Pacifica at this point. Certainly that makes the local Nimbys happy, but I don't think the CCC cares one way or the other about the locals or our crumbling city. They're above all that and mission-focused and their mission is probably not good for our economy.

Hutch said...

ANON 2:11 I'm not a NIMBY and I say we do have a payroll problem. Every city in California is having a payroll and pension problem. You think we're immune?

Some cities like Millbrae have done something about it by cutting wages 5% across the board. And some cities like Pacifica just kick the can down the road.

Of course we need development to bring in revenues. But that will take 5 years or more to start to pay off.

Anonymous said...

Oh Hutch, that 5 years til development pays off is pure myth. Try 20, and the payoff may not be enough. Meanwhile costs keep going up and revenue declines and Pacifica can't figure out what to do. We'll get a little bump from increased property tax revenues til the next stumble in the housing market. The rest of what you say I agree with.
Cut those salaries, shift more of the benefit cost to employees and make sure all new hires, particularly public safety, are into a two-tier retirement system. Might also get used to the idea of being county run.

Anonymous said...

Focusing on payroll alone is myopic. We have many tools at our disposal and ignoring the substantial impacts that NIMBYs have caused by constantly limiting our revenue is silly.

Anonymous said...

@406 Who you calling myopic? Maybe you should get your prescription checked. With the exception-in-perpetuity of Todd Bray, none of the recent posters are focused only on payroll. They recognize the need for revenue and they are well aware of the crippling damage decades of enviro influence has done to this town. And if you think we have "many tools at our disposal", sorry, LMAO.

Anonymous said...

Hutch

Then you just fell into the gang of no's trap.

If you have paycheck envy, like the king of bs who spews his nonsense on the local blogs, apply for a city job.

simple fix.

Hutch said...

Then Anon 443 I guess you must be a government union member cause they're the only ones who shut their eyes to the fact that cities everywhere are cutting wages.

I don't have payroll envy. And I don't give a crap what you pay city workers. Just don't come trying to take the poor and struggling peoples money to pay for it. If you can't afford to pay $150,000 salaries then you need to make some cuts. Not tax people more.

This is a conservative view. Not a liberal NIMBY one.

Pacifica Mom said...

Dear Kalimah Salahuddin:
I am writing now about the August 8 Pacifica Patch article, where you intentionally or unintentionally allowed yourself to be made into a poster child for UUT Measure V. For those of you who did not see the article, here is a link:

http://pacifica.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/how-will-you-vote-on-the-utility-tax-in-november

I too am a mother with two children in the Pacifica School District. I am writing to ask you, as a mother, to stop supporting new taxes in Pacifica. The people cannot afford this tax right now. In the Pacifica Patch article, you tell how the Resource Center helped you many years ago. You connect the dots between that experience and supporting the UUT measure. But things have changed since then. I do not believe the Resource Center needs the tax to keep on going. Up until a few years ago, we were renters. As a single mother, with children, renting, you should know how hard it is for families now. Good jobs are hard to find. People are unemployed or under-employed. Now I am not sure what your situation is right now. But have you looked in craigslist lately for an apartment or house to rent?. Rents in the bay area are skyrocketing. We don't have rent control in Pacifica. I'm not sure if you are renting now, or have a mortgage, but if you are renting, and your rent goes up, how can you afford extra money for this tax? I am glad that you have lifted yourself and your family from the circumstances of when you needed to go to the Resource Center. You are involved in local politics, helping out some candidates and you were appointed to fill out a term on the Jefferson High School Board. But I fundamentally disagree with you here on taxes. We don't need more taxes in Pacifica, we need less taxes. The few dollars that this tax may take, may take food out of the mouths of the children for some families in Pacifica. People are hungry. Many people come to the food distribution at the American Legion. Did you know that? People from Pacifica and all over.

My husband’s company cut salaries three years ago. The cut was equal to our grocery budget. They have not had any cost of living increase since then, the company is struggling...but meanwhile health insurance and other things people need to pay for.... their food, gasoline, electric cost much more than before. If there is not enough revenue to run the city, maybe Pacifica needs to cut the salaries too, like other cities have. Why not bring more businesses to Pacifica….that would pay some taxes and for all the City employees? We bought our house a few years ago and our property taxes, some of which go to Pacifica, are thousands of dollars a year. I'm sorry, I don't like that. People who bought their houses during 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, etc…. dont' pay as much property taxes as us, because of Proposition 13. I understand that next year, there will be a Library tax or parcel tax, how will the people pay all these taxes? In the Patch article you list the many groups that will benefit from Measure V. The tax forces everybody to support them. People should have a choice, and the tax takes away that choice to support or not support.

Finally, I want to tell you about my friend who has a small store on Palmetto Avenue. She and her husband are small business people. They work very hard. There are many family businesses on Palmetto. They are fearful of the tax and the truth that their customers will spend less on Palmetto. I think this tax will hurt their businesses. Since we moved here, many stores have closed. Does the City want more stores to close? This tax won’t help businesses it will hurt them.

From one Pacifica mother to another, Please discontinue your support of the tax Kalimah.

Anonymous said...

Hutch

No I am not a goverment employee, not federal, state, county or city. I am self employed and in a slow year I make twice what the highest paid Pacifica city employee makes.

That's why I can care less what city employees make. The system has been broken for too many years.

Steve Sinai said...

For anyone who thinks Pacifica Mom is actually a Pacifica Mom, or even lives in Pacifica, I've got an old wastewater treatment plant I'd like to sell you.

Anonymous said...

I don't think city workers are overpaid. The facts just don't support that. I also don't think Hutch or even Todd suffer from paycheck envy. That accusation is a distraction that never fails to draw fire. Whatever city workers earn, the money comes from the budget of a city that is broke, financially and otherwise. And is going to be broke for some time to come. That alone is reason enough to make real and sustained payroll cuts. Real and sustained. Not smoke and mirrors, not deceptive headcounts, no deceit, but a real reduction in payroll dollars. 5% reduction followed by no more than COLA increases for 5 years should relieve the agony. Council needs to do their job before trying to blackmail the taxpayers into paying more taxes.

Anonymous said...

5% is a drop in the bucket.

Peebles, was the town savior, and Pacifica let that end badly!

Anonymous said...

Yes 739 Peebles is gone and sadly he didn't take anyone with him. Forget him! The mess is ours. 5% payroll cuts, real ones, sustained, would be a great place to start.

Anonymous said...

This isn't an either/or situation. We need to deal with both sides of our financial equation: revenue and expenses. We need to be vigilant about salaries and pensions, and we need to make certain the new Economic Development Plan becomes reality. In the meantime, as imperfect as the tax measure may be to some, we need revenue the State can't get at. There are great ideas and great people on all sides of these issues. Let's get at real solutions.

Anonymous said...

7:11

You don't own the old waste water plant, Therefore, you can not convey title.

Hutch said...

12:20 Wow you've got that speech down pretty good. It doesn't sound rehearsed at all.

"as imperfect as the tax measure may be to some"

Wow, just wow. First off, this tax isn't imperfect it's a piece of crap that will hurt real people. And as far as "some" goes, every blog every LTE every person except the ones involved with this hot mess have been dead set against paying more tax when the city has made no real reductions.

Now go back to the city or the UUT Commission or where ever you came from and come up with some more doublespeak. Or use your real name unless you're afraid.

Anonymous said...

@1220 The City raised our sewer assessment to the highest in the county, the state can't take that away. They got us to vote for a fire assessment, the state can't take that away. Your lame argument that we need tax that can't be taken away makes no sense. It has been tax after tax after tax. Time for the city to make some real cuts to un-affordable salaries. It was their turn 3 moves ago.

todd bray said...

The economic development plan? Is that anything like Mien Kampf? Oh, I hope not. :)

Anonymous said...

City of Pacifica
Economic Development Plan - DRAFT

A good read...
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5853

Anonymous said...

What ever happened to the idea of hiring a economic development czar to try to bring a few bucks into town?

Steve Sinai said...

The city never had the money to hire someone like that.

Chris Fogel said...

The city currently has money budgeted and set aside for the an Economic Development Coordinator position.

I suppose (though I don't know for sure) that they're waiting for the Economic Development Plan to come before council first. Thus far, it's only been discussed in committee.

I don't know what the hold up is. I would have thought this sort of thing would have been fast-tracked.

Hutch said...

Yeah I have heard Len Stone and Mike ONeill talk about hiring an Economic Development Coordinator. Don't know what happened but that should be pursued before they try to extract more blood from citizens.

Anonymous said...

Oooh, an Economic Development Coordinator. That's generic for a paper-shuffler, a support person for somebody already on our fat payroll. Too low level to make a difference. Waste of money, but I'm sure whatever demi-god they report to will appreciate the extra help. We need a full-fledged Director level economic rainmaker. They're out there, but apparently not a priority of this council. A council who has easily spent what it would take to hire a rainmaker on consultants just in the past few months--including about $60,000 on their current scam, the UUT. Hiring someone to make a difference is just not a priority with this bunch. What are they afraid of? Losing control? Sharing the spotlight? Development, actual revenue producing development and the uh controversy that goes with??

Anonymous said...

I think there was a clear and present signal when Mary Ann and Lennie mysteriously both missed the meeting 2 weeks ago.

The UUT is getting beat up in the Tribune, Riptide and Fix Pacifica. The Cabbage Patch hasn't mentioned it.

Lennie and Mary Ann, may have ended their Pacifica Political careers with this soon to fail tax.

Tune in for the next episode of how Pacifica turns.

todd bray said...

Hutch, if you overheard Stone and ONeill talking about an economic hire, and we know it's something Stone and Nihart discuss I think you've uncovered a great big sopping wet BROWN ACT violation, yes I do. Good work!

Now I wonder if our co-joined twins will whine and fuss about that Brown Act issue? Ha, we know they wont. Too bad. It would make them human.

Anonymous said...

Todd

The DA will slap them on the wrist and make them write

we will not commit another Brown Act Violation, till we do it again.

10 times on the chaulkboard.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, those planning commissioners got pretty harsh treatment. 4 of 7 got reappointed. It would have been 5 but Leon quit. And if Tom Clifford was more easily muzzled, I bet he'd have been reappointed, too. Langille must have failed a loyalty test to get the boot. Brown Act violations are a big deal...everywhere but Pathetica.

Hutch said...

Todd, Mike was talking about that during his campaign. Hardly a Brown Act violation.

And I don't believe a councilperson saying one of their aspirations is to hire an Economic Development Coordinator is any kind of violation.

Let me clarify, when I said " that should be pursued before they try to extract more blood from citizens."
I am not talking about Len, Mike or Council.

Anonymous said...

113 Didn't those two give prior notice they wouldn't attend that meeting? Had to be somewhere? Attend ComicCon? As far as ending their ahem political careers with this UUT thing, yeah, maybe, but being associated with Pacifica ought to be enough. Of course the UUT hasn't lost, yet. When it does they have their scapegoat ready, FCSTF. Remember, council did lead them by the nose into recommending a tax which council then declined because it was an election year. Obvious to any observer. Liaisons from Council to FCSTF: Nihart and Stone with Rhodes there every step of the way, willing or not.

Anonymous said...

Well then the question becomes who you talkin' about Hutch? Bray's just jerking your chain. Ignore it.

Anonymous said...

The Pro-UUT propaganda at 1220 is really amazing in its attempt to embrace one and all in the afterglow of absolute bullshit. Nothing brings out that Kumbaya spirit like Council picking the public's pockets.

Anonymous said...

Gee, if it's UUT time now, I wonder what Council will do in 2016when the CalPers increase hits Pacifica. This city will be ordered to increase its contributions by as much as 50%. CalPers overestimated investment returns and is underfunded and the State has ordered the employers to make up the difference. There's no way to tax ourselves out of that one. It'll be a bond and it's a council decision, not a public vote. Are we still paying 100% of some employee's CalPers contributions?

Anonymous said...

What will council do? All fees up. Wait till you see your water bills and sewer tax after they try to get 50 million to fix the poop plant. Oh and the aging infastructure. Oh and the Library they want another 35 million. OPM at its best. OPM=Other Peoples Money.

I have a word of advise. If you are thinking of selling bail out now, you may not get a safety chute in 2016.

Anonymous said...

Only on Fox Pacifica would an appeal to both sides to find real solutions be described as "propaganda" and "bullshit."

Anonymous said...

everyone invited to today's tax meeting. 6PM at Susan Velone's Visions Seaside Spa, park mall center on Oddstad. Free eats.! Stop by to watch all your pro-tax council members attend. Hear pro tax members of the high school and elementary school boards weave their magic! Speakers at 7PM. Or maybe this is open mike might

Anonymous said...

"Tommy Taxed Too Much said...
It's a sad day when the board of the resource center comes out immediately in favor of this mess due to pressure from council. Can you imagine how it went? "If you don't endorse this, we will be forced to defund the Resource Center". How nice. Scare tactics.
Unfortunately, this tax will severly impact the very clientele that the Resource Center is charged to care for.
Unconscienceable that a council member would lobby the board like that."

This is not a true statement. what lobbying - pressure by city council are you speaking about? If you don't have specific facts you shouldn't make things up.

Anonymous said...

Did he say his name was Tommy True? No, he did not. Old Tommy's been called out on this before. Ms. Rees and the Board of the Resource Center can and would think for themselves on this issue, whatever position they take. Let's not drag them into the dirt surrounding this UUT scam. They have work to do.

Anonymous said...

Council needn't show up at the gala to show support. They've already put our money where their mouth is. Leave the cheese whiz and crackers for the loyal dupes, uh, I mean troops.

The Local Libertarian said...

From: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=5973

------------
What challenges does our city face in continuing the quality of services?

“State takeaways” of city funds have harmed the
city’s ability to maintain high quality services.
To address its own deficit, the state has taken
funding that historically goes to cities. Since
1997, the state has taken $26 million from
Pacifica. As a result, the city cut staff and
programs and negotiated with employees to
reduce and/or cap benefits and pensions to
balance the budget. But cuts alone cannot solve
the long-term budget shortfall. Pacifica needs a
stable source of revenue to protect the quality
and level of services in our community.
------------

What exactly are "State takeaways"?

Shouldn't the city be prioritizing funding local expenses instead of handing over city funds to sate?

If the situation is such that the city is facing revenue short falls, shouldn't the city be taking a stance against giving away its local revenues?

Also,

How would this work if someone chose to disconnect their regular AT&T phone line and use free VOIP and/or Internet based telephony services?

What if someone lived in Pacifica but their mobile phone was registered else where, how exactly would they enforce in this case?

It seems to me that the city have a lot more explaining to do to current residents and as such is summarily an inept proposal for even discussion let alone voting.






Anonymous said...

What exactly do you propose that the city do? Stomp it's feet and say "give me my money, Sacramento"?

Don't be so naive. This is happening to every single city in the state and will just worsen with the impending pension tsunami.

The Local Libertarian said...

Educate me if I am wrong here.

AT&T offers unlimited calling (local & long distance) for $44/month.

6.5% tax is $2.86/month
OR $34.32 a year.

The proposal states the measure would raise up to $1 million a year.

This implies there are 29,137 (1 million / 34.32) telephone connections in Pacifica.

The population of Pacifica per 2010 census is 37,691 persons. I believe the population has pretty much remained stagnant in the last 3 yrs.

However, lets assume a nice round figure of 40,000 people.

This would then imply (40000/29,137) = 1.37 telephone connections per person.

Either I am missing something patently obvious .. OR?

The Local Librarian said...

I am voting for the UUT.

Anonymous said...

Of course you would vote for it local librarian. If this tax on the poor doesn't pass there's even less chance you'll get your new 30 million dollar unnecessary library

Anonymous said...

Duh, Local Librarian. Just a warm up for your big fat library bond.

The Local Librarian said...

Marian the Librarian by
Harold:
Marian...Madam Librarian
What can I say, my dear, to catch your ear I love you madly, madly
Madam Librarian...
Marian Heaven help us if the library caught on fire
And the Volunteer Hose Brigademen
Had to whisper the news to Marian...
Madam Librarian
What can I say, my dear, to make it clear I need you badly, badly,
Madam Librarian...
Marian If I stumbled and I busted my what-you-may-call-it
I could lie on your floor
'Till my body had turned to carrion...Madam Librarian.

Now in the moonlight, a man could sing it In the moonlight
And a fellow would know that his darling
Had heard ev'ry word of his song With the moonlight helping along.

But when I try in here to tell you, dear
I love you madly, madly,
Madam Librarian...Marian!
It's a long lost cause I can never win
For the civilized world accepts as unforgivable sin
Any talking out loud with any librarian Such as Marian...
Madam Librarian.

Anonymous said...

I really miss Agenda 21.

Anonymous said...

I have 3 lines with Comcast.

The triple play for internet and tv work out cheaper then ATT

But the tax on the bill works out to about 10 or 11 bucks.

not counting the franchise fee the city gets every month.

The Local Libertarian said...

@ 6:45

What is not included in the expanded UUT?

The updated and expanded UUT will not include cable or satellite television, water service or internet services.

For customers who have triple play, technically the phone connection is over Internet. Its a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Which would mean that technically all Comcast subscribers would be exempt from this proposed measure.

Even if they are bull headed enough to charge it on pro-rated basis, and assuming every Comcast subscriber has the most expensive service @ $159/month, that would be

6.5% of $53 or $3.4/Month per subscriber or $41.60/Year.

Going with the figure of 40,000 population and assuming a phone connection for every 3 people (lets just ignore no one in Pacifica has a cell phone)

That would be 13,333.33 connections.

So $41.60 * 13,333.33 = $554,666.66 is the total potential revenue (high estimate)

Now assuming that all these 40,000 people also have the most inclusive mobile plan. @ $50/subscriber the potential revenue would be:

40,000 * ($110 * (6.5/100)) * 12 = $1.56 million (high estimate).

But what if someone bought their mobile plan in SF or Oakland or San Jose or elsewhere? How would they know that I am a resident of Pacifica?

Would they force the cell phone service provide to tax all those subscribers billed in Pacifica regardless of they use that service in Pacifica or not?

Or would they then ask the service providers to only bill for those calls made or received in Pacifica to residents of Pacifica and tax on a pro-rated basis? Would this mean that service providers track all calls made and received and provide proof of transactions to the city of Pacifica?

Or what if someone lived in Pacifica but had a mail box outside of Pacifica?

In spite of all this what happens if the revenue target of $1 million/yr is not achieved?

If it so happens that they are able to collect more than $1 million/year and since this UUT expansion is planned for 8 yrs, would they then reduce the 8 yr time period accordingly?


Now, I am curious to know how and where from the city derived the potential $1 million/yr revenue. And how they intend to collect it?

More details please.



Tommy Taxed Too Much said...

Remember, figures don't lie, liers figure. And FYI, the Board at the RC came out immediately in favor of this tax. Makes me think they were given a heads up and an ultimatum.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe people make up such ridiculous conspiracies at the drop of a hat. Of course the PRC supports the tax --they understand where their bread gets buttered just fine without any kind of ultimatum.

While it's definitely true that there's a payroll problem, it's a shame that everyone seems to ignore the naive and shameful opposition to any development by our local NIMBYs. Their contribution to our inability to fund these critical resources is getting obscured when we only blame city salaries.

Anonymous said...

2 biggest reasons to get people off their butts.

1. fear

2. greed

two biggest manipulators

Anonymous said...

1013 Why beat a supposedly dead horse? We all know the enviros have had 40 years to ruin the city. They've done a fine job, virtually uninterrupted, of giving away or encumbering nearly every possible source of revenue. Scraps remain, that's all, just scraps. Quite a legacy. Our payroll problem is the ever-increasing costs vs. flat or declining revenues. We need to focus on this payroll problem now. Making it a part of the old growth vs. no-growth argument is a distraction guaranteed to prevent a solution. Of course, some people would love to see that happen.

Larry said...

I see the pro pocket-picking tax group is touting all the great things this tax will do for Pacifica. Wonderful. Except for the small fact that it's going to wages and pension increases. Sort of like our infamous "Fire Tax" that resulted in our outsourcing our fire department and the layoff of 3 fire fighters.

The Watcher said...

I heard that 50% of the attendees at the soiree for the tax kickoff were police brass and city employees. Wonder why? Shilling for a raise me thinks.

Anonymous said...

255 Of course the cops have been prepped to say they're just worried about our safety if this thing doesn't pass. Other city employees in attendance have less noble motives to support the UUT. A picture would be worth a 1000 words.

Anonymous said...

1013 You may not have noticed but Tommy Truthless has changed his tune a little. In his earlier unsubstantiated claim (8/21 732pm)he said a nameless councilmember delivered the ultimatum to the PRC, ie, endorse or you lose your funding. Today, his story is he thinks the PRC board was given a heads up and ultimatum because they endorsed the UUT so quickly.
You know, Tommy, a lot of voters don't like dirty politics, innuendos, lies, etc. Disgust enough of them here and elsewhere and you could help the UUT pass.

Anonymous said...

Same for "I heard that 50% of the attendees ... " etc. Yeah, I heard that half of them were unicorns or other mythical beasts and the other half were garden gnomes. It must be true because that's what I heard. Is this what passes for facts on this blog?

Anonymous said...

The PD wants to go sheriff. They would get a pay bump. Maybe you should ask one of our officers what they think. Or sit down with the chief and have a cup of joe.

Hutch said...

A Pacifica cop I talked to a week and a half ago told me he doesn't want to go to the sheriff because he doesn't want to work at the jail. True story.

Steve Sinai said...

The Pacifica cops I've talked to about going to the Sheriff's Department didn't want to do it.

Hutch said...

Did they say why Steve?

Anonymous said...

Oh, so they want to stay with Pacifica? Interesting situation since most of them leave after getting a few years experience. Have their expectations changed somehow? Expecting good news on the force? Pacifica's downward spiral hasn't stopped one bit, not really. It's not going to matter a whole lot what these guys want. Nor should it.

Anonymous said...

Hutch, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it? They don't want anything to do with those nasty criminals.

Steve Sinai said...

"Did they say why Steve?"

Hutch, after a CERT meeting earlier this year, I asked a couple of cops what was going on with the outsourcing proposal. They said it was dropped because it turned out it wasn't going to save as much money as expected, because the cities that had contracted out to the Sheriff's Department ended up with unforeseen expenses.

They hoped the proposal was over with, although they knew there were no guarantees.

Steve Sinai said...

I'm also noticing that the person who says the cops want to transfer to the Sheriff's Department isn't using his name, while the two people who say they don't want to transfer put their names behind it.

Hutch said...

Well I doubt the cops real reason for not wanting to go to the sheriff is because Pacifica won't save as much as expected. There must be something else.

Certain people have told me there is tremendous pressure not to outsource. From who? Police?

Steve Sinai said...

Hutch, the cop who gave the explanation was just relaying the reason why the council shelved outsourcing. But when I asked if the issue was settled, he said, "I hope so."

It shouldn't be assumed that most people in the city want police services outsourced to the Sheriff.

I'm personally not in favor of outsourcing.

Hutch said...

Thanks Steve, I didn't mean that the way it sounded. I'm really wondering who is opposing outsourcing. Who is lobbying council against it?

I personally now believe that even if we save no money (but we will) the prospect of reducing crime even 10% is worth switching to the sheriff.

But back to the subject. VOTE NO ON MEASURE V.

Anonymous said...

Most people like the idea of their own little local PD. Remember the infamous phone poll? That target group of older voters felt it was important. The sense of autonomy is mostly illusion but important to council and comforting to the residents, and having our own cops kinda goes with that whole safe small town image that lots of us value and want. The whole thing is political kryptonite at this point.
PPD has always had officers going to the SMC sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies. Capt. Realy-Vasquez went to the sheriffs last year. Some of the younger officers leave for greener pastures as soon as they have some experience to make a move.
Whether we favor outsourcing or not, without a miracle in Pacifica's finances, it will come to pass. Lots of painful cuts, diminished services between now and the inevitable. And that miracle in Pacifica's finances is not the UUT, whether or not it passes. It's revenue producing economic development and not only haven't we any on the way, but we're starting 10 years too late to save our little status quo.

Chris Fogel said...

The Chamber of Commerce has just released it's official position on Measure V in a strongly worded and well articulated statement: NO

Anonymous said...

A very stupid move. The end of city funding for the Chamber.

Tom Clifford said...

I agree with the Chamber 100%
Both the process and the tax are flawed.

Hutch said...

Yes the Chamber of Commerces letter opposing this tax is here:

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103529695417-780/UTTax_FINAL_PCC_8-26-13.pdf

Basically they are saying the City is misleading voter and there is no guarantee where the money will be spent. They also say "A typical family of 4 could anticipate paying hundreds of dollars more per year for this tax."

Larry said...

A recent poster made a snide comment that coming out against Measure V, a regressive, business damaging tax, would cost the Chamber funding. That shows that the Chamber has a moral conviction to do what they believe best for not only the business communty, but the community at large.

Oh, and has anyone seen the letter?

Anonymous said...

520 Stupid? Refreshingly honest. They get a pittance from council and they have to grovel for it. Good to see them stand up. If council decides to take an adversarial position towards the Chamber in any number of ways, either overt or sneaky, it will be a true sign of what this fake council really thinks of business.

Tom Clifford said...

From the Chamber of Commerce Letter

"we believe City Council initiated the tax proposal with good intentions and there is no argument that the city needs revenue, but the rush to put this measure on the ballot,as well as the lack of community awareness,involvement,and discussion,has resulted in a poorly constructed measure not having "buy in" from the community. The Chamber of Commerce was not informed of this effort until very late in the process, not allowing the business community to participate in the process either. So far the City has spent close to $55,000 in its attempt to promote this tax, including consultants' fees,a limited poll, and a voters flier mailed out."

Anonymous said...

It's an excellent letter. It's on Riptide. Hope it's posted here asap. Hits the bullseye on all the flaws with no hype, no exaggeration, and doesn't mute the message with inflammatory crap. Factual and irrefutable. Bravo to whomever wrote it! Get it out to that list of likely voters. If the City won't share the list, you know their criteria, and the elections office can help. Can we send donations to help in the effort? Where?

Hutch said...

Very well worded letter by Jim Wagner, concise and informative.

Tom Clifford said...

A big thank you to the Chamber of Commerce Board of directors and Jim Wagner

Hutch said...

Yes anon 707 you can send donations to fight this unfair tax to:the Committee Against Higher Utility Taxes, 1005 Terra Nova Blvd. Suite A, Pacifica

Anonymous said...

Who is collecting the money for this?

Hutch said...

@ ANON 7AM The committee above is taking donations to fight this. A diverse group of concerned citizens of which I am one. We have submitted ballot arguments against which have been accepted. We're up against a $55,000 campaign but I believe once people find out the facts they will vote no.

Tom Clifford said...

I, like Hutch am proud to be a member of the Committee Against Higher Utility Taxes. Any an all contributions will go to fighting this unfair and flawed tax. Poster, adds, fliers, and MAILERS ALL COST MONEY. Send your donations to the COMMITTEE AGAINST HIGHER UTILITY TAXES 1005 Terra Nova Blvd. Suite A Pacifica, Ca. 94044

Thank you

Anonymous said...

There are legal requirements are for a group collecting money against a ballot measure. Please make sure you have met them. Do you think the city's shadow group supporting the measure has had benefit of legal advice and experienced community fund raisers?

Anonymous said...

9:23

Have you seen any flying Elephants lately?

Anonymous said...

Nah, not me, but you run afoul of the Fair Political Practices Commission and you'll feel like one fell on ya!
Whoa, and here's a sign from the cosmos meant for you, I'm sure...the Captiva code to prove a robot isn't posting this was 'attiturd'.

Tom Clifford said...

We are obtaining our FPPC number setting up a separate bank account for the Committee and will follow all reporting requirements.

Anonymous said...

I have spoke to the Fair Political Practice Commission a couple times. The give out slaps on the wrist.

Tom, if you guys take off with the money and go to Bora Bora can you at least send us post cards?

Lots of high rollers on the chamber why don't they kick down some money.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clifford, No surprise that you know what needs to be done and why. The devil's always in the details. Best of luck with this!

Anonymous said...

1151 It might not be how they roll. At least they came out against the scam. That'll look nice in print if you can buy some print.

Anonymous said...

1151 Really? Sounds like bravado. Once you start collecting public funds the slap on the wrist from the FPPC is done with a machete. Who needs the notoriety? Easy to follow the law and you have people who want and know how to do it right. Don't need to leave a trail of muck like the city on this one.

Jim said...

A correction. The committee is called:

Pacifica Taxpayers Against Measure V.

That is the official committee name.

There were several names bandied about. This is the one that will filed.