Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure V

  • Don't be deceived - THIS IS A 60% TAX INCREASE

  • Pacifica has a balanced budget, a $1.4 million surplus, and enough money to pay for consultants, conduct voter surveys, send us campaign mailers and call a costly special election.

  • Growing our tax base, not new taxes, is a better way to meet revenue needs.

  • Don't overlook all the tax overrides we already pay on our property tax bills.

  • This tax hits just residents and exempts visitors and is unfair.

  • $500 yearly cap for businesses. No cap for residents.

  • Exempting based solely on age while the truly needy are forced to pay is unjust.

  • Seniors - you are not automatically exempted - You have to submit paperwork to apply.

  • This is a new tax on an essential safety service - your phone.

  • None of the proposed revenue is guaranteed to go for any of the lovely programs that Pacifica cites as its reasons for raising our taxes.

  • The supposed independent oversight committee's only real job would be to watch tax monies disappear into the City's General Fund. Council will spend the money as it chooses.

  • The eight year duration of this tax is too long. Then they'll want it extended forever. There's no temporary tax.

  • Pacifica will never make overdue economies as long as it thinks the voters can be fooled into  taxing ourselves more.


Submitted by Jim Wagner


Anonymous said...

So, we don't have a 1.4M surplus!
Guess the city finance director Ritzma was lying to the council. No wonder she's gone. Shouldn't someone check those numbers?

Anonymous said...

Harsh. When Council said Annie, quick, we need a surplus, at least she didn't say 7 million. Remember that one?

Anonymous said...

May 2013 Budget: "As presented, the General Fund budget is balanced without use of reserves. The projected contingency/reserve balance will increase by $135,403 from the prior year to $1,687,451"

The proposed FY 2013/14 budget includes the following:

• No reductions in services or staffing

Chris Fogel said...

June 10, 2013 City Council Meeting

Agenda Item 12 -- Public Hearing: Fiscal Year 2013-2014 General Fund Operating and Capital Projects and
Enterprise Fund Budgets

The General Fund contingency/operating reserve is projected to begin FY 2013-14 at $1,482,048 and end with $1,804,292 (6.73% of the annual General Fund expenditures).

Revenue projections are conservative, reflecting the economic climate as well as portions of ever shifting State funding such as Excess ERAF.The proposed General Fund FY 2013/14 budget is the second year in a row of a balanced budget that allows for the City to build a modest General Fund reserve and conforms to the Five Year Financial Plan that was developed to eliminate the structural deficit of prior years.

Tom Clifford said...

Looks to me like we made a statement of fact and the $1.4 million surplus does exist and is projected to grow to $1.8 million.

Anonymous said...


Remember when Ronald Reagan, was running for President.

I remember him calling it, "Voodoo Economics"

Anonymous said...

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, it was actually Bush 41 who said that about Reagan's numbers.

Tom Clifford said...

It was George H.W. Bush in 1980 who call supply side economics [Reagonomics]Voodoo Economics.

Anonymous said...


I stand corrected

Anonymous said...

Using the sliding bullshit scale (every Pacifica home should have one), I'm more inclined to believe we have a surplus than I am to believe this UUT money won't end up used for salaries, consultants, surveys, polls and so forth while also setting the precedent for the next scam.

Anonymous said...

It's not a surplus, it's a reserve. You don't call your emergency savings account a "surplus."

Anonymous said...

But we just had a fiscal emergency. After the hr person running city finances I figure, that trying to understand the city's finances will be like try I Nguyen to crack the Divinci Code.

Anonymous said...

The city is also being audited by the IRS.

Anonymous said...

Unclench 915. Called it a surplus because that's what it's called in the Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure V, which opened this thread and which I choose to believe over the Argument in Favor of Measure V.

Anonymous said...

943 come back her and explain that bomb. is this an ordinary audit or something extra special?

Tom Clifford said...

Since the mess in Bell Ca. all Cities are being audited more often By both the State and the Feds. After several different audits nothing out of the ordinary has turn up in Pacifica. That does not mean they are spending the money wisely just that they are spending it as the law allows.

Anonymous said...


San Bernardino has the state's blessings to file chapter 9 bankruptcy.

Anonymous said...

Anon 915 said "You don't call your emergency savings account a "surplus.""

Really? That's all you got? The 1.4 million is in our General Fund not in an emergency account. Try again to deflect.

Anonymous said...

Not trying to deflect, just correcting misinformation. It doesn't change the argument. But if you don't know that the reserve is not a surplus, you don't understand the city budget.

Steve Sinai said...

"San Bernardino has the state's blessings to file chapter 9 bankruptcy."

Is there a point to that comment?

Kathy Meeh said...

City bankruptcy, rather than solutions: "Is there a point to that comment?"

I think there is no point, other than manifestation of someone (Anon 742 AM) with OCD stuck on city bankruptcy.

If Measure V (additional taxation) is not the solution, what is? Is the city currently moving forward to correct this long term city economic deficiency.

Anonymous said...

Pacifica does not now qualify for Chapter 9. The bills are being paid, we have a small surplus, there are still numerous cost-cutting measures that can be taken although all are exceedingly unpleasant for the people that they will effect, and there's a Band-Aid tax on the ballot. And let's not forget the magic of bonds. We're going to continue to scrape along the bottom for years to come. Also, if V passes, and these things have an 80% recent pass rate, it sets a precedent for further UUT changes that could become our lifeboat for a decade. The big money isn't in our phones.

Anonymous said...

Kathy, Yes! The City is moving forward to correct this long term economic deficiency. They're gonna grab your wallet.

Anonymous said...

I think in most cities where this UUT passed there was vitually no oganized opposition. Hercules didn't even have an argument against on the ballot. We have a strong opposition here. It will not pass.

Anonymous said...

Well that's a comforting thought, but in each of the cities there was some level of opposition, some of it very vocal, some well-organized. The problem is the city councils who put these measures on the ballot had public funds, planning and consultants on their side. Consultants like the one being used in Pacifica to tell them when and how to take their best shot. All the opposition can do is react at a very grass roots level. IMHO, here, it's going to be all about turn out.

Kathy Meeh said...

"They're gonna grab your wallet."

350, yes that's what the city has been doing for 20+ years, along with ridding this city of land. See how that is working out. 60% open space doesn't pay the city bills, or fix city infrastructure, or move city progress forward (out of the mid-20th century).

Structural solutions would be the plan to fix the economic development neglect in this city. The city knows how to hire consultants, so with city council support actually "welcome developers" and move several plans forward.

This is not a new issue. We already tried that "grab your wallet" plan you mentioned. And we're also living with it in fees, surcharges, and remote location penalties.

Anonymous said...

So true Kathy. I think Pacifica suffers from a succession of do-gooders and idealogues who want a very bucolic, park-like city, with no industrial and very weak commercial sectors. In power for decades, they created an excess of park, while they severely limited housing which, yes, would have run up the cost of public services, but also would have brought in the people to support and grow the businesses in this town as well as created tax revenue. They come from the 'government will pay for all this good stuff' school of thought and later the 'we have to pay more to live in such a groovy place' group. They set about to build the city they wanted and did a bang up job. Nobody stopped them. They made land use decisions and transportation decisions that will forever cripple this town. Forever. Now what? Well, it's a new economy and clearly the government isn't going to pay, so the bill has been handed to the taxpayers. And the town isn't quite so groovy anymore. Remains to be seen whether this ideology is really dead. Put a stake in it. NO on V. NO.

Anonymous said...

You know, there are some very intelligent business men and women in the group of yes. I wish everyone could have banded together and got some good candidates on city council.

This council has had over 6 months to prove they are different. Tax and spend. Oh and hire consultant after consultant.

I also wish the residents would start paying attention. Other cities laugh when you say your from pacifica. Other cities have git them selves out of fiscal problems with rational thinking and well thought out plans.

There seems to be an attitude of, well if we can just get through this year, we will be ok.

It's an embarrassment what these self centered nimbys have done. Ok you won, but your still not satisfied. The lawsuit regarding highway 1, proves it.

Oh well a few people have seen the writing on the wall. No new people really show up and speak at city council.

My neighbors, have no clue how bad off the city is and how far they are in debt.

Wait till they try to sell the sewer plant replacement and or repairs bond and the library's bond. That will be just over 85 million, in additional debt.

Maybe most people are not bothered by debt. I am bothered.

Wise up pacifica you deserve so much better!