Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 5/11/17. "Let people have say on Highway 1 widening" by Steve Sinai
If voters had been allowed to decide, Mary Ann Nihart would be on council rather than Deirdre Martin. The only reason Martin is on council is because she made a maneuver that turned the last election from nonpartisan to partisan, which forced VA employee Nihart out of the race. Federal employees aren’t allowed to run in partisan elections. Sleazy, but effective.
Recently the aforementioned council members quietly passed a rule saying Highway 1 widening couldn’t occur without a citywide vote. Then they refused to allow a vote. The only reason for doing that is because they think voters would approve highway widening. Again, the interests of their NIMBY supporters comes before the will of Pacifica voters. Games like the above are why people are so disgusted with politicians.
Now they’re pushing for rent control, even though pretty much every economist, anywhere, has said it only makes housing problems worse. Did rent control in San Francisco make rents affordable there? And the expectation is that if rent control is voted down, they’ll simply remove the end date of the current interim rent control measure, and make that permanent. Not fair, but it serves their interests.
Keener, Digre and Martin aren’t solving problems. They’re creating new ones and making current problems even worse."
--------------------
Note NIMBY stop sign graphic from Thoughts to Promote Positive Action/Anton Antonio, 7/23/15, "The Pitfall of the NIMBY syndrome."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
8 comments:
Keener lied to me. He came to my house saying he would give us a better option which he presented to me. I want the highway fixed, not widened. He never said he would push rent control and ban the library and the palmetto street redevelopment. I want the library and palmetto redeveloped. Since he has been voted in he has done nothing but take us backwards. He lied. He is a liar.
Thanks Steve. Your comments and assessment of the monkey puzzle that is Pacifica politics is bang on. I read a lot of comments about the growing hostility all around us. Well no wonder. The crooked political games and one sided agendas that have taken root in Pacifica's DNA have turned our town into a very distressing place to call home.
No one has rights or a vote anymore except for the faux-enviro NIMBY cult members.
Sinai
The gang of no run Pacifica. Not a damed thing you or anybody can do about it.
@6:40-
You are SO wrong. You people just aren't willing to do the heavy lifting to make it happen. Bernie Sifry (sp?) proved this as his one man tour-de-force changed the foundation of Pacifica politics forever by enacting his City Council term limit referendum. He did this all by his lonesome with literally no help from FP or any of the other cry babies who claim our local government has been hijacked by the enviros/nobies. No one thought what Bernie did was possible. But to his credit, he concluded that nothing in this town is going to change by simply whining about it - especially to the choir at FP. Change means taking it to the people as Bernie routinely did at both Safeways and beyond.
902, Bernie had help and contributions from others. That campaign was not exactly a "one man tour-de-force", and City Council term limits is an 8 year term (not grandfathered for those in office).
There have been many campaigns in this City: outside Safeway has been a good place to handout flyers, and talk to people.
But, an Anonymous who posts comments here, complaining about others who post comments here-- well, that's priceless.
9:02 It's a whole lot easier to motivate and activate a cult than it is to mobilize a broad general public. Jim Jones is proof of that. That is not to say that the normal people in this town should ever give up trying to defeat the faux-enviro NIMBY cult that is destroying Pacifica, but at least acknowledge that it isn't as simple as you suggest.
BTW Bernie did a wonderful service for our city but he definitely did not do it all by himself.
Here's another person that sees through the scam of making an interm ordinance into something permanent just like San Francisco did. It is an extremely important reason why the signature gathering is so important to stop this interm moratorium. Don't be fooled by Faith in Action, Daniel Savor, or The 3 council members who are pushing for property (rent) control.
Pro Rent control supporters seem to believe in the following:
Outside Democratic party influencing local election = Good
( resulting in Deidra Martin winning by default)
Outside Attorney operating with Millions of dollars from Facebook dividing Pacifica's tenants, landlords and citizens = Good
Outside Tenants Supporting Rent Control = Good
Outside Rent control measures being copied = Good
Outside funds from Sierra Club = Good
City Council Member not recusing themselves from numerous and obvious conflict of interest issue agenda items = Good
Influencing and misleading the voters = Good
Ignoring example of economists on the fallacies of rent control when it helps your cause = Good
City Council releasing a very controversial proposal on a Friday and voting on it on the following Monday = Good
Harassing Legal Signature Gatherers instead of moving a few yards away to talk about your own opinion = Good ( Even Better!)
Ignoring enormous amounts of research that says Rent Control does not result in a good outcome for renters in order to push your agenda = Good
Saying that The AB1506 bill to Repeal The Costa Hawkins act so that rent control will not pass ( it can easily pass and may) to affect single family homes, condos, townhomes, duplexes, like you know what you are talking about (on this and many other issues) = Good
Ignoring the fact that the city council has already created and voted on ordinances, instead of allowing the public to vote, and can easily change something a word from Temporary to Permanent ( As did San Francisco's Rent control ordinance) = Good
Misleading the fact that Just Cause Eviction can be applied by a city council with a 3 to 2 vote, without a public vote, to Single Family properties, Condos, Townhomes, Duplexes. = Good
City Council Members Not looking into other city's solutions to the renters issues with an outcome that worked, like Boston, because "that is comparing Apples and Oranges" said Deirdre Martin = Good
Allowing Outside Attorneys to entice Renters at no cost to them but a monetary benefit to the Renter and especially the Attorney to sue the landlord at the landlords sole cost = Good!
Local Citizens, Realtors, Property Owners who receive support from groups that they are affiliated with = Bad
Signature Gatherer's legally soliciting signatures = Bad
Talking about a remedy where everyone in the City can Contribute to the renters issues, like a city wide tax or fee that is voted on by the citizens and applied to everyone instead of making groups that are immediately against each other = Bad
Knowing that we all have family members, friends, neighbors, etc who are renters and that all of us (Property owners, Neighbors, Renters) do want to help those who need help and want to find a solution = Bad
Post a Comment