It used to be that pulling the Hitler card pretty much acknowledged that you had lost the debate. It seems that new tactics have been perfected to prove that your point is not valid.
Name calling, accusations, intimidation, threats, and more have all now been loaded into the tool box of those campaigning for C. It's too bad that a civil discussion can't be entered into.
Are the strong point of this measure so weak that you can't debate why it is necessary beyond the frantic cry of "because!".
People of Pacifica are more intelligent than that and I like to think we are savvy voters.
Submitted by
Jim Wagner
Proud to be in the Real Estate Profession
16 comments:
well the Yes side has always acted desperate. Tried to block petition signers, flooded city council with people I have never seen before to rant and rave. Shouted at council speakers who they disagree with. Got city staff to post statements on the city website that look to me like campaigning (our tax dollars at work!)
They work up this legislation run by an unelected committee spending our tax money and certain to generate lawsuits we must defend with our tax dollars on a flawed program that is unfunded to the tune of at least $1 million. Homeowners will end up paying if this mess passes.
and they can't fix potholes. Wonderful
Vote NO on measure C.
WARNING
The NOBIES vote as a block.
They WILL show up and the WILL vote yes on C.
This is our vote to lose.
If you don't bother to come out and vote NO on C these private property theifs will win.
Don't let that happen.
VOTE NO on C * VOTE NO on C * VOTE NO on C * VOTE NO on C
Their latest gyrations over some post that the AG is investigating some kind of scat created by their own spin masters is the latest load of bull do-do making their hearts palpitate. Oh, I'm sorry, I might be a hatert. Oh, wait, I'm not a Realtor, I think I've been hurt by them. I want them to hate me, too. I want to be a labeled. What's a racist? I mean, by their definition, because the Realtors I know are the first to open their wallets to the community. Pacificans care, Rotary, all the schools, team sports, resource center, cancer walks, and more. If that's their definition then they are sorely out of touch.
To date, I have neither seen or heard of any bad behavior or a single bad act on the part of the No on C crowd.
Sadly, I have seen hundreds of signs stolen, property destroyed, names called, and offensive behavior on the part of the YES on C people. Why is this? Why does one side feel they have the right to engage in unethical and illegal behavior? Where does this mentality come from? How do they feel justified committing these acts? It is disappointing that the supporters of Measure C feel that they can silence a whole group of people - homeowners - by engaging in ruthless and bullying behavior. What happened to discourse and debate? What happened to democracy in Pacifica? This race might be nearly over, but will this behavior continue the next time a controversial issue arises in Pacifica? I think neighbors, friends, and witnesses of unethical behavior need to stand up and tell these people that these tactics have no place in politics in Pacifica.
As the Assessment of Fair Housing reports, African-Americans and Latinos are overrepresented among renters, and they are disproportionately likely to be affected by evictions. Of the nearly 4,000 San Mateo County residents surveyed as part of the Assessment of Fair Housing, approximately 2 in 5 Latino and African-American renters reported experiencing displacement in the last five years. Filipino residents participating in a focus group conducted as part of the Assessment of Fair Housing reported similar experiences.
I guess the truth makes some opponents of Measure C very very angry.
Perhaps C supporters would be more civil if the No on C crowd weren't lying like crazy about "hidden tax increases" and "16 people to an apartment.
The No on C campaign has been a campaign of lies from the very beginning.
Currently the San Mateo County Board of Elections is investigating the lies used to trick people into supporting the petition drive against the temporary rent control passed by the council.
Page 3 in the current Tribune. Never before saw a scarier collection of mug shots.
956, 1000 (Joe Who?), several decades of liars with dirty tricks in this City are generally NIMBIES. And various complaints prior to elections and development are all part of that "fooled you" NIMBY style.
If you NIMBIES were sincere, you would campaign to help people get AFFORDABLE HOUSING. (You know, new development, including infill, housing solutions.) But you don't.
Stop Joe, please. Both sides are seriously cherry - picking and creating arguments to benefit their side. The Yes on C group is claiming the holier than thou ground but I am not buying what they are selling -nice to be the wonderfully compassionate crowd on someone else's dime. Also not buying many of the arguments on the No on C side. I look at facts and while I am concerned about the fact that rents continue to rise and tenants seriously need protections, I also am concerned that this measure complicates matters - and not to tenants benefits. As stated many times, rent control disincentivizes maintenance and rental ownership and creates scarcity and further exacerbates a terrible situation. Additionally, it creates a reactive environment where landlords are raising rents in anticipation of rent control. Regardless, something needs to be done - like more governmental programs for those that most need it the most to retain diversity and a balanced community, and more housing which so many in Pacifica seem to be against. If this passes, I hope it works but regardless, I hope as a community we continue to find better solutions for the majority of residents.
Joe Hill, Please explain exactly how Rent Control protects African -Americans and Latinos? Not sure I understand the connection here? Doesn't rent control simply protect those currently in a lease - whether they are high - medium or low income? Certainly doesn't protect individuals in the community currently without a lease (such as the homeless, or young adults not yet out on their own) will only make it harder for them.
Policies like Measure C do not work. They lead to a scarcity of housing because people will remove available units from the market and housing costs will rise. In the long run, rentals will be more scarce and rents will be higher. It is extremely flawed policy, and that is why almost all respected economists - and the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst - all say that they don’t work. There are actual solutions that were being discussed by the Rent Advisory Task Force, that was disbanded to pursue Measure C. This is a shame.
Good idea Gina, why doesn't council bring back Rent Advisory Committee. Are they afraid of what the diverse committee might come up with?
When is the last time you allowed a tenant to sublet to another individual without the property owner's approval and credit check? Well that is what measure C allows-- that is a disaster in the making!
When was the last time you benchmarked your business to the CPI which doesn't take into account true costs or after tax returns? The CPI does not take all inputs into account as a measure of inflation.
When is the last time an unelected body of individuals told you what you could or could not do with your business by people who are biased and believe that private property rights aren't relevant?
And when is the last time the proponents of C could state things without insults and a condescending attitude? Usually those tactics are the badges worn by folks like you my friends when all else fails. Hey, why not bring out racism, immigration, and Russia while you are at it!!
Well after Tuesday it just won't matter what you say about Measure C as it will be over and done with and soundly defeated.
Measure C is supported by Sue Digre and John Keener. Just as she did in her campaign to steal an illegitament seat on council, Deirdre Martin with her Marxist manager, Cynthia Kaufman, are dishonestly distorting reality in order to hoodwink the population into voting for it.
Pacifica is under fire.
Vote Vote Vote, NO on C and then work tirelessly to reclaim our city and rid it of these very harmful people.
I'm with the guy who says this is going to be a "squeaker". Half my neighbors are or have voted Yes, the other half are or have voted No. The fact that they are canvassing Fairmont, which is hardly even a part of Pacifica, means to me that "Yes" team is super organized, energized has a lot of troops out in the field and are trying to nudge each voter. I don't see the No people out on the street canvassing my neighborhood, however, I certainly have received their mail, including one more flier yesterday (FRIDAY, November 3)...showing Yes on C supporters in t-shirts at a planning session discussing extending rent control for single family homes. Yes team got Andy Pappas's hill off Highway One as a big sign location, that is HUGE in my view, I can't think of a time Andy hasn't picked a winner. I'm on pins and needles as to how this is going to play out on Tuesday. You can check the results as they come out
by visiting the County elections website https://shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2017/nov/
Pot and Rent Control. Was it possibly by design to have the two on the same ballot.
Post a Comment