Monday, October 24, 2016

City Council Candidates, vote for two (2): easy choice!

Voter Edge/11/8/2016 Election/Pacifica City Council, "My top 3 priorities."

Image result for City Council candidates picture
  Two (2) candidates will
continue current progress
in this City, two (2) will not.
Progress Candidates 
1.   Sue Vaterlaus, (Professional Businesswoman).  1) No managed retreat- I am in favor of continuing to save our coast and to redo the seawall thereby maintaining our homes, businesses, infrastructure and more. 2) Main Street- We have been working on a downtown mainstreet for many many years and it is finally coming to fruition. Walkable shops, restaurants and hotel for all Pacificans. 3) Library- Pacifica needs a new 21st Century Library. 
2.  Mary Ann Nihart, (Incumbent; Clinical Director, Chief Nurse Ambulatory Care SF Veterans Affairs Health System). 1) Increase affordable housing. 2) Stabilize our shoreline and protect our environment. 3) Improve our infrastructure.

NIMBY Candidates 
3.  Bridget Duffy, (Homemaker). 1) Save Pacifica's neighborhood libraries. 2) establish renters rights. 3) preserve our nature. 
4.  Deirdre Martin, (Product Manager). 1) Work to put policy in place to create protections from the rising cost of rent, to keep the people who want to stay in Pacifica- in Pacifica. 2) Sea level rise is real, is here, and we are only beginning to feel the effects. We need to understand the impacts on our community, our economy and our environment and act on it. 3) I am firmly against the Caltrans plan to more than double the width of Highway 1 between Fassler and Vallemar. We need to conduct 21st century studies to propose alternative solutions to traffic concerns.

Reference, Full general election 11/8/16. Voters Edge/Ballot information.
Related City Council Candidate website information.
1.  Sue Vaterlaus. Website, See Meet Sue: " New leadership delivering results for our community." ... "From 2013 to 2016 she served on the Pacifica Planning Commission. Prior to that from 2011 to 2013 on the Economic Development Committee and also on Financing City Services. In addition she was on the General Plan Steering Committee and City Facilities Site Plan Committee. Sue was also on the Board for the Pacifica Library Foundation and many committees at both Terra Nova High School and Vallemar School.  Sue served on the Bond Review Committee for the Pacifica School Distrct."
2.  Mary Ann Nihart.  Mary Ann Nihart/Facebook, includes links to related information.  Candidate website.   City Council Incumbent.  City Councilmember attendance 92%, voting record.  Professional background, outside City Government,  UCSF Profiles.
3.  Bridget Duffy. See Voter Edge information above. Green Party.
4.  Deirdre Martin.  Deirdre Martin/Facebook.  Linked In.
Related articles.   Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff Writer, 8/24/16, "City Council candidates file papers for election."  Pacifica Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center, 10/17/16, "City Council candidates speak! Hear their answers to local community concerns, Q&A"

Note graphic from City of Laramie, WY, 2016, Municipal Elections, 2016 City Council. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

What complete and utter bollix (although no surprise). Vaterlaus and Nihart are just as much in the pockets of "build it up and concrete it over" NATIONAL realtors who dont give two f*** about Pacifica than Martin/Duffy are in the hands of the so called Nimbys. If you HAVE to categorize (and look how well THATS worked for USA with Trump almost in the WH) me then yes, I would be pigeon holed (by your readers) as one of the latter but im NOT a left wing NIMBY (per your definition) against all development, just AGAINST development that doesnt keep the coastal trails and open spaces open for tourism and commercial development. For example, why cant there be developments made over existing commercial structure a la Santana Row in Lindemar, Eureka square etc RATHER than that abortion of a development called Harmony. Most of us want to see progress and commercial/residential development that can combine BOTH of these things. As does Martin who has voiced her support for workforce housing whereas Nihart, remains (unsurprisingly) silent on ALL issues.

Edward R Murrow said...

Stegnunk, Pacifica's brilliant National Examiner wannabee, wove these classics on his Onion-like blog:
"In contrast, the San Mateo County Democratic Party has endorsed both Hillary Clinton and Deidre Martin for Pacifica City Council."
So are we to assume that Hillary is running for both President of the United States and the more prestigious post of Council Member of Pacifica? There is a grammatical term for what he did and it's not good.
Oh, and then there's this tidbit:

"EDITOR'S NOTE: No candidate in recent years has dragged the City's dark money candidate financing into the open like Bridget Duffy did this year... a proponent of Renter's Rights, Duffy has fought the San Mateo County Association of Realtors up and down the County for the last year, and frequently calls out the tens of thousands of NAR dollars going to local candidates Mary Ann Nihart and Sue Vaterlaus." Dark money? What the hell is dark money and Duffy is making claims, legitimized by Mr Stesnook in his blog, that are this much short of crazy, in my humble opinion (which Stiknuck has none of)and really border of the ludicrous. Keep up the good work you purveyor of all that is sort of not true or believable. Mr Sistrunk, you provide a much needed comedy blog to this town. Oh, and I thought Hillary was running for council.

Woodweird and Burnstain said...

Stegdrunk's been huffing his own farts.

"Dark Money" is a reference to Super-PACs that are structured in such a way that they aren't required to disclose their donors' names or the amounts they've given.

You know and I know and my cat knows that this has nothing to do with Pacifica's City Council race, but that won't stop Stegdrunk from staring at his wall of grainy photos, newspaper clippings, all connected with yarn in swamp-fever flowchart...and claiming that Vladimir Putin is behind it all.

Anonymous said...

Stegink has burned every bridge he's ever crossed. He's persona non grata in the School District after the PTO kicked him out and he went LITERALLY CRYING to the principal about how mean they were! Then the city council as a whole just clowned him two weeks ago when he got up in front of them to huff and puff that Mary Ann was "zomg under federal investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and they just laughed in his face.

Stegink's that dumbass kid in first grade who swore to everyone that he had flown on the space shuttle once. Now he's grown up and telling everyone that Bigfoot beamed down to earth from a UFO to tell Dan that Nihart and Vaterlaus are space aliens.

Anonymous said...

Nah, Derp Herpstank ain't all that bad. Just keep in mind three things

#1 he's always wrong. Always. Like holy crap wouldn't you be right once even if it's by accident? Nuh-uh totally wrong every time. Amazing.

#2 he's a total beta b*tch who wets himself when he gets treated like he treats others

#3 when he tries to convince you that he knows what he's talking about remember rule #1

Anonymous said...

I'll give Dan credit. He's managed to unite a divided town. Everybody considers him a total asshole.

Anonymous said...

Out of curiosity, how are comments like those above NOT considered "1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls"?

Intelligent adults seeking to have a meaningful, fact-based, comprehensible conversation do not say things like "Stegdrunk's been huffing his own farts" or " he's a total beta b*tch who wets himself when he gets treated like he treats others," or "everybody considers him a total asshole," etc.

Just saying that it is possible to disagree with someone without resorting to nonsense talk. (I was going to write "without sounding like Donald Trump," but even Trump -- a man who openly bragged about grabbing women by their Ps -- isn't this crass/juvenile.)

Anonymous said...

Oh, 9:42, that's so cute. Your outrage is misplace. Read some of dirty Dan's pronouncements and if you think the frustrated participants here are ranting too loudly then you may have the patience of a saint. Dan has usurped Next Door with his incessant tit-for-tat engagements with anyone disagreeing with him. He insists on calling out Realtors for no apparent reason other than they support some candidates who have a long, long history of giving back to this community. Anyone who wants to peruse the property history, which is public information, will notice interesting things going on in the chain of title where he lives. Those are the kind of breaking news stories he likes to "break". He then begins to make a mountain out of a molehill. He's really a piece of work. I wouldn't be outraged at what's said here, I'd be outraged at the way he acts.

Anonymous said...

Go to the publicly available Iowa Department of Corrections offender information page and type in some names. You'll be surprised what you'll find!

Anonymous said...


give us a couple hints

Anonymous said...

Oh, I dunno...just type in the last name of anyone that comes to mind after reading the posts here.

Anonymous said...

What's a "serious misdemeanor"? Is that a botched felony?
You're right, the name pops up numerous times in different spelling contexts in this stream. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Anonymous said...

[b][i][u]IN A SHOCKING TURN OF EVENTS[/u][/i][/b] I see four charges including interfering with an investigation and filing a false police report.


Anonymous said...

7:18, you missed a doozy, a separate incident where he evaded the police. He got sentenced to jail time for that one. Case #30371I in Johnson County, IA. Wonder if there are any outstanding warrants.

Anonymous said...

How are these not a personal attack?

Fair and balanced blog my ass!!

Anonymous said...

For those of us internet challenged why don't you copy and post those. Mr. Stegink wouldn't hesitate for an instant to post those.

Anonymous said...

9:41, right you are. Stegink's name is listed in the County Voter's Guide under the No on N arguments. And as Dan himself has said many times, THE VOTER'S HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!

So, Dan, want to explain what all these Iowa public records are about?

Anonymous said...

9:24, so they are personal attacks when you don't like them and "facts" when quoted by Dan?!

Anonymous said...

9:24, when Stegink makes up stories and fake accusations about people and posts them everywhere, that's perfectly fine with you? But when public records show that Dan himself has been convicted of filing false police reports in the past, that's somehow beyond the pale? Is that how this works?

Anonymous said...

@2:00 - How do we know this is the same Stegink. After all, it's Iowa.

Steve and Kathy - you have censored several of my comments that were no worse than the attacks on Stegink. Do you have any integrity at all? Of course this will be censored too.

Anonymous said...

Oh, please, please someone post the actual reports or details. Oh please.

Anonymous said...

WTF is this about? Makes no sense.

Kathy Meeh (Edited "white space" comment originally posted at 4:37 pm) said...

Right you are 607, "makes no sense", (except for the skewed articles Stegink posts on his blog).

437 pm comment removed, but the initial comment follows:
"This is white pages premium. I'm not paying for a report on this guy but it sure looks like some interesting stuff.
if you think this is mean, take a look at what he's doing to Nihart on his blog. Just plain mean. If he has 13 or whatever it is old addresses what's up with that.
Me wonders. Free Report Summary."
Note: The non-linked "Free Report Summary" included no meaningful information, and the blank space took-up an entire page.

Anonymous said...

I submitted Dan's rap sheet earlier. It's up to Kathy and Steve whether or not to post it, but it's most definitely Stegink as name/address/dob and other sensitive details match up 100%.

Kathy Meeh (helping you find reality)) said...

310 spamming, "censoring" comments for cause is rare on this blog. Yet you say of blog moderation, "you have censored several of my comments".
So how could that be? Why single-out you of all others who claim the same anonymous nonidentity.
Gosh, there must be some reason, some vexing variable.

Then, you alone (by deduction) claim "integrity", whereas those who spam, "censor" your irregular comments must have "no integrity at all".
Ah, the answers may be yours to discover through thoughtful reflection... or not.

Kathy Meeh (enough sticks to Dan) said...

839, let's end this. It looks like that Daniel Stegink (Iowa) paid fines for filing a false police report, nothing more--(from your report which I spammed at 7:16 pm).
The local Dan Stegink's comments and website speak for themselves. Dan's got enough baggage without adding more.
Meantime, you can't prove 100% that Iowa Dan and Pacifica Dan are the same person; and, even so, so what? Let's move on.

Steve Sinai said...

I agree with Kathy. No more accusations against Dan unless you put your name behind it.