Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Measure V: By the Numbers

Grand total votes: YES 34.12% (2,050); NO 65.88% (3,958)

6,008 of 22,749 registered voters in Pacifica cast ballots, representing a 26.56% participation rate in Tuesday's election.
68.69% of those who voted, did so by mail (4,125).
31.01% of those who voted, cast ballots on election day (1,863).
0.33% of those who voted, did so via early voting (20).
Of those who voted by mail, 36.90% (1,481) voted YES.
Of those who voted by mail, 64.10% (2,644) voted NO.
Of those who voted on election day, 30.06% (560) voted YES.
Of those who voted on election day, 69.94% (1,303) voted NO.
Of those who voted early, 45% (9) voted YES.
Of those who voted early, 55% (11) voted NO.

Submitted by Chris Fogel
 

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pacifica voters are consistent on taxes. Measure D the 1% sales tax increase lost by very similar percentages in May 2009. That one was to replace the expired fire tax and would have run 7 years. Painful memories of that fire tax.

Anonymous said...

26.5% voter turnout! That kind of apathy is what backers of unpopular issues hope will allow their bill to pass.

wonder what the true support or non-support of Measure V would have been if larger numbers of voters turned out.

Not to worry; I expect Measure V in some form or another will re-surface at the ballot box in the not too distant future.

Anonymous said...

there would most certaily be recalls in order if they were dumb enough to float another tax in the near future.

Steve Sinai said...

The recall threat isn't something that anyone takes seriously.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the recent recall silliness has made everyone view recall supporters as wackadoos.

Anonymous said...

844 silly and wackadoo comment from you. And you are everyone, really? Maybe you see double, triple when you're drinking.

Anonymous said...

Glad it lost. Will be happier when "no on v" crew goes and takes down all their signs.

Scotty said...

And maybe you shouldn't post anonymously when that's all you ever complain about, Kathy.

We all know you don't like to call people "hypocrites"... What's appropriate here?

Anonymous said...

844 Oh yes, recall. Add it to the list of things Pacifica has made a mess of. In the hands of our wackadoos, a remedy meant to be used with restraint and intelligence for true malfeasance and misconduct in office, is used to settle political differences and personal scores. As practiced here, it shares all the understanding and respect for hard-won democratic principles and institutions as an Alabama lynch mob or the capering fools around the guillotine or a burning at the stake. Its usual proponents are cringe-worthy, the type of people who would use a power saw to trim their toe nails.

Kathy Meeh said...

Scotty 1011, the 844 pond scum comment did not rise to the level of named person reply. But apparently you think your named follow-up comment did.

The 2012 recall effort did not move forward, but a decade of city council members crippling this city was a just recall cause. See Ballotpedia.

A recall effort may move forward for any reason. The 2012 effort which did not continue did serve an educational purpose.

Anonymous said...

Yup. That last one forever linked the recall option with crackpots. A fine teaching moment it was.

Hutch said...

1236 This is from someone who wont use their real name. Afraid of something? Me? Maybe you're Pete or Jimmy? Oh yeah they're gone now.

The recall again was started when Vreeland was still screwing the city. He was the main target. After he resigned or got kicked off council the movement lost steam. We knew Pete wasn't running again but we kept going anyway and managed to talk to 1000's of Pacificans about our budget and a NIMBY enviro radical council that has kept us stagnant. Did I think we would succeed? No. Do I think it helped educate voters and thus help elect Mike ONeill over Rich Campbell? Definitely.

What have you done? If you want to use your real name and tell me different that's fine. Otherwise stfu.

Kathy Meeh said...

Hutch 139, I am mildly amused that Scotty 1011 (known person pseudonym), defended "pond scum" Anonymous 844. But possibly both comments were his (hope not).

Similar to me and others, Scotty was involved with the 2003 recall effort of the same city council members (then aka Gang of 4). Guess Scotty forgot all about that. Wouldn't call your comments "hypocritical" (your word Scotty), but the 1011, 844 comments seem to be selective "binary thinking" (again your words).

Meantime, interesting how Anonymous 1236 calls others "crackpots" when he has no name, and no proof that he, himself has a brain or is capable of reflective thought. That "teachable moment" is waiting for you 1236 on the 159 link, click.

The city is 60% permanent open space, and the budget/service inadequacy is clear enough. Out of 20 cities in San Mateo county, Pacifica is last in revenue spent per capita). That's the way it has been for a very long time. Our citizens have lost sound city structural focus (mainly through ongoing "our environment is our economy" manipulation). Thus, we continue to fight over scraps (this time another tax). Yet, this city lead by city council members has expertise available, so why does this city continue rot?. Having the courage to stop the failure is up to them.

Anonymous said...

What you get from reading Fix or Riptide and particularly the sobering facts presented without bias on the Index, is that this town is over. Stick a fork in it. The town is done. Irreparable damage done decades ago with land use decisions made by dreamers sans crystal ball. It's obvious we were modeled after a park, but we're not a park. We have 38,000 residents who require services and think they're paying for them. Meanwhile, a plucky band of rebels persists in doggedly attacking an endless parade of feckless officials who couldn't fix the problems even if they understood or agreed on what they were. Can not fix them. The highpoint of our miserable civic existence? Defeat of a moronic tax measure that should never have been put on a ballot. Never, even if it could have been put there without spending probably a $100K final total in public funds.
We're desperate for any diversion and exaggerate meaningless so-called victories. This will not end well. We're just dancing on the grave.

Scotty said...

If it's so bad, 8:41, please leave. There are others in
Pacifica who aren't ready to give up.

Anonymous said...

That's the spirit, Scotty! You fight on if you think you can change the trajectory of this town. I'm too pragmatic to waste my time for so very little potential return. I think Pacifica's destiny was sealed a long time ago. Thought that when I moved here 30 years ago. Hippie-ville with the hippies aging right along with their town. Nice, quiet little bedroom community with a beach and not much else. It has worked for me, house paid off, kids grown, great friends and neighbors, job secure. Kids went to private schools and I use a minimum of city services which is fortunate because a minimum is about all this city can provide. For everything else we willingly go elsewhere. It's all close enough. There are a lot of people with the same mindset. We'll help where we can and cash out when we're ready, thank you very much. You go get 'em!

Anonymous said...

If you can do the math, you know Pacifica is a lost cause. Nothing that can possibly be built, borrowed or stolen can keep up with the cost of payroll, benefits and pensions and the bill for infrastructure is years past due. Many years. The state put a stop to cities looting the sewer tax fund in 2006 or 2007 and nothing has been the same since. No way to make up that 3/4 of million every year. Meanwhile all that deferred maintenance and those sweetheart labor contracts are coming back to haunt us. Solutions? Do without. A lot.

Kathy Meeh said...

So I've learned there is a confusion in who is "Scotty". And I apologize to the Scotty I know who would NOT call others hypocrites, and advise people to leave town. The Scotty I know, would consider and attach his more comprehensive comments (even funny quips) to the larger community, the school district, and the city.

Of course, people may be named Scotty, or carry that pseudonym. And possibly, this Scotty representation is just another version of Anonymous. This Scotty did not disclaim some background comments I made of the other Scotty. Some of us would find that fact disturbing, and discrediting to the pseudonym of a credible person, aka Scotty.

So consider this new "Scotty" on the merit of his comments alone. Until he is attached to his own identity, he is anonymous Scotty.

Scotty said...

Could someone please translate?

Kathy Meeh said...

426 translate? Sure, who are you Scotty?