Thursday, March 16, 2017

Realtors support city council progress candidates, NIMBIES well...

Where as, NIMBIES supplemented less revenue through their usual sideways, shameful or deceitful election strategies and tactics.

Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop Staff Writer, 3/16/17, "Watchdog group reveals election donors." Developers contribute to City Council race. 

Image result for NIMBIES picture
Yep, this is the "watchdog" group. How did their bias become
the lead Tribune article? Where is the group disclosure,
the explanation on spending, background research, etc.?
Pacifica Progressive Alliance (PPA) focused on out-of-town real estate industry sources that made significant contributions to the 2016 City Council race in a statement sent by PPA member Carlos Davidson.

...  The campaign for the library bond accepted many small contributions from individual Pacificans, the largest, $2,000, from Ellen Ron, and from a few groups, Pacifica Library Foundation, a homeowners association and a local Boy Scout troop to raise $25,952. San Mateo County Supervisor Don Horsley was the only out-of-town resident to make a contribution. The campaign spent money on campaign literature and polling.

....  'The National Association of Realtors spent $76,408 on the Pacifica City Council race, swamping all other contributors combined. The California Association of Realtors contributed $9,000 and out of town Realtors donated $5,300,' the statement reads."   Read article.
Note:  The article above does not describe the make-up of the "watchdog group", and there is an attitude in the article that Realtors and developers which create City housing, shopping, business economic solutions are "bad".  Really?  Really???

Related question.  Who and what is "Pacifica Progressive Alliance"?  Is this local group related to a broader group.  The Pacifica Evening News KPFA-FM, 5/4/16.  New Progressive Alliance goes against corporate lobbyists." "A new alliance of progressive advocacy groups is pushing what they call “dream builder legislation.” It’s a package of bills on a range of issues from juvenile justice to health care, the environment, and welfare. They’re working to present an alternative to the pro-business California Chamber of Commerce’s annual list of so-called “job killer bills.” Christopher Martinez reports from Sacramento."

Related Google word search, for Carlos Davidson, Pacifica leads to Pacifica's Environmental Family celebrates more than 25 years of environmental Action.  Note graphic cartoon image  from Windtoonscom Http//farm7staticflickrcom/6175/6 from  Nimbies Species (research search).

Posted by Kathy Meeh


julie has opinions said...

Realtors are not bad. But perhaps out of town money shouldn't influence local elections. Maybe the Democrat endorsement isn't needed if there is a level playing field. Got one postcard from Martin, none from Duffy, and enough to wallpaper a room for the other two.

Did the Quarry developer contribute to the Real Estate PAC money? That would be interesting.

Anonymous said...

This is really eye opening. Im normally a centrist type voter that makes a decision based upon the candidates proposals and character. The fact that out of town real estate interests are trying to influence OUR city leaves a very bad taste and i will be wary of voting with the Oneil, Nihart, Vaterlaus crowd again. Oneill seems to be quite reasonable when ive seem him speak at city hall but now the cat is out of the bag on the true power behind the throne. Time to get money out of ALL politics and let the issues be the deciding factor.

Carl Common Sense said...

Seems 12:11 and 3:16 have selective memories. You happen to recall the cell phone tax measure the city placed on the ballot a few years ago. Over $100,000 was raised to support the tax, the majority coming from out of town donors with interest in making a buck in town. The tax lost in a landslide. Realtors promote smart growth and smart housing policies. Jane's article is factually inaccurate (surprise) and she is extremely biased in her reporting. Why wasn't there a response asked for from the group she so blatantly trashed??

Anonymous said...

I think it'd be interesting to know whether the out-of-town donations were solicited, or if these groups spent the money independently and just reported the totals, as required by law. I know of a couple of cases where that's happened.

julie has opinions said...

If the story is inaccurate, there will be a response. Numbers don't lie. This is public information. I'm sorry it kills the narrative.

Anonymous said...

The $750,000 and change for Yes On W also came from out of town. And W lost in landslide. The difference is that it was obvious what was going on and where the money for the Yes on W campaign was coming from. It wasn't known until this report that out of town real estate money funded most of Sue Vaterlaus and Mary Ann Nihart's campaigns. Obviously the real estate industry was interested in making a buck in town

Please indicate where Jane's article is factually inaccurate. Without that, the charge is just an empty attack.

Anonymous said...

@7:24 - Why would anyone allow facts to get in the way of preconceived opinions? Welcome to Pathetica!

Anonymous said...

Expect big marijuana companies to come into Pacifica and make big bucks.Political influence money from out of town will be way beyond $750,000.

Steve Sinai said...

If people can spend $750,000 on a campaign and still lose, that undercuts the idea that outside, moneyed interests are controlling Pacifica. The money helps get the message out, but if people don't like the message, all the money in the world isn't going to help.

Anonymous said...

Selective outrage much?

Where are the complaints about outside influence when the Sierra Club and Labor organizations gives money and canvasses on behalf of candidates?

And what do these crybabies think of filing complaints with the OCS in order to prevent Pacificans from voting for Nihart?

Cue the crickets.

julie has opinions said...

- The Sierra Club didn't spend $76,000
-The "National" Association of Realtors wanted to place two candidates on the Council, at the same time that W was on the ballot.
- If W had passed, the City Council would vote to permanently rezone the quarry residential, without any further public vote.

-Again, no need for Nihart to drop out if the Democrat endorsement wasn't necessary to keep up with nearly $100,000 of outside money.
-The Sierra Club endorsement would not make the ejection partisan, nor do they send out thousands of postcards to promote candidates.

Anonymous said...

Doing our semi-annual check in from the far reaches of the universe. All is well, nothing has changed in Pacifica. Check the box and on to the next galaxy.