Highway 1 poison pill

Maybe "poison pill" isn't quite the right term. But it's kinda' like that.

The ordinance below will be up for a possible vote at the city council meeting on Monday, March 13. Its intent is to prevent the city from supporting highway widening without a public vote. For such a contentious issue that so many in the city are interested in, it sure hasn't been publicized much. I didn't know anything about it until Mark Stechbart sent the blog a notice.  Anything in the Tribune or on Nextdoor about it? Not that I saw. That makes me wonder whether council is trying to sneak this through under the public's nose quickly and quietly.

Go ahead and let people vote on the widening, since it may help settle the issue once and for all. Or at

least for a while. But there's a major problem with the way the proposed ordinance was written. Its clear purpose is to block highway widening, and to do it hidden within a phony  veneer of local democracy. Keener, Martin and Digre don't care what voters think.  Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise given that this ordinance is only being proposed because Deirdre "I'm so nice" Martin and her supporters decided their own narrow interests were more important than letting Pacifica voters choose who would be on council, so they abused an arcane election rule to force a more popular and representative candidate out of the race. No concern for Pacifica voters by Martin then.

Give them credit - these people know how to game the system.

If you're going to be fair about it,  then let's have a city-wide vote and respect the outcome of that vote. A "no" outcome prohibits council from supporting widening. A "yes" outcome obligates council to support widening. Personally, if I see that a majority is against widening, then I can live with that. But the proposed ordinance is written so that council can simply block widening by refusing to allow a public vote, which is what will happen. Even if by some miracle there is a vote, while a "no" vote requires the city to oppose widening, a "yes" vote still allows the city to oppose widening. Them's pretty good house odds.

Ultimately, everyone knows this council isn't going to approve widening with or without an ordinance, and any ordinance passed by council can easily be repealed by the next council. So other than to give Keener, Martin and Digre cover, what's the point?
 

ORDINANCE NO. (ID # 2148)
 
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA PROHIBITING CITY ACTIONS SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF THROUGH-LANES ON HIGHWAY 1 WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA VOTERS

Section 1.   Findings

The City Council desires to prohibit any action supporting the construction and/or development of any additional through lanes on Highway 1 in the City of Pacifica without voter approval by a majority of Pacifica voters.

Section 2.   Ordinance

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFICA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

That neither the City Council nor other legislative bodies of the City shall take any formal action to support or authorize the construction and/or development of additional through-lanes on Highway 1 in the City of Pacifica, without first having obtained a majority voter approval of the City of Pacifica electorate authorizing such through-lanes.

Section 3.   Severability

If for any cause any portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid, the balance of this ordinance shall not be affected.

Section 4.   Effective Date

This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption. The City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, shall attest to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to be posted in the manner required by law.

This Ordinance was introduced on March 13, 2017, and duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Pacifica at its duly noticed regular meeting on March 27, 2017 by the following vote:

AYES,         Council Members:
NOES,         Council Members:
ABSENT,    Council Members:
ABSTAIN,  Council Members:


Posted by Steve Sinai