Tuesday, November 7, 2017

Final November 7, 2017 Pacifica Election Results

Measure C : (Rent Control)

    Yes: 37.97%
    No : 62.03%

Measure G : (Weed Tax)

    Yes: 78.57%
    No : 21.43%

Posted by Steve Sinai


Larry said...

Another attempt at San Francisizing Pacifica has failed. Please, council, get back to the work or running this city not ruining this city!

Dadbod Apocalypse said...

In a post somewhere on this site, I had predicted the outcome to be 45/55. I expected C to be soundly defeated but I didn't expect total nuclear annihilation.

There is more than rent control at play in these results. This is a repudiation of "environmentalist" policies that generated this crisis by blocking housing and revenue-generating projects, and not fulfilling the low-income housing requirements mandated by the county. We got here because of their decisions and Pacificans rightly rejected their so-called solutions to this problem of their own making.

The 2018 council race just got veeeeeeeeery interesting because NIMBY influence in Pacifica is waning. Despite their best organizational efforts, Martin only managed to get elected via a technicality and they couldn't pull off a rent control win.

And don't tell me they lost because of SAMCAR money. The Yes on C group also had an obscene amount of money to work with, but they couldn't deliver. When I saw how much money they had banked, my eyes bugged out because I didn't see any evidence that there was a $50,000 Yes on C effort. I'm not going to blab about what was going on behind the scenes, but they ran an unbelievably lousy campaign.

This is the beginning of the end for the "environmental" group. They could have been a powerful force for a few election cycles, but they overreached and blew it. That's a post for another day.

Anonymous said...

Vallemar voted agst rent control. Both vallemar precincts voted NO, cynthia kaufman's own neighborhood rejected. So the lesson for council is their chest pounding on sanctuary city or trump maybe be viewed as grandstanding..on the big stuff where voters have a voice, council gets trounced.

Anonymous said...

Measure C exposed the NIMBYs as the total hypocrites they are. Julie Starobin filed all the campaign documents on behalf of FairRents4Pacifica...you can see the 470 filings for yourself at city hall. She was also the lead in opposing rezoning the quarry for residential use during Measure W. Gee...kinda hard to take someone like that seriously when it comes to affordable housing in Pacifica.

Supporters of Measure C really got off on insulting their opponents, accusing them of wanting to starve people, kicking grandmothers out of their homes, and of being "heartless." Well, right back at you for wanting to prevent people from having access to additional housing stock.

Housing is a community-wide issue that will take the entire community to address, but these dumbasses thought they could divide everyone and insult their way to victory.

Anonymous said...

Yes on C began in the minority and needed to grow their support in order to win. They went about gaining this support by behaving like total a--holes at public meetings, and making social media posts accusing anyone who even questioned the measure of being heartless, greedy, and wanting to "go to Africa and enslave people like King Leopold of Belgium." I'm not kidding.

Great campaign, guys.

mike bell said...

Thank you Pacifica for standing up to the eco-bullies and the Martin/Kaufman/Keener/Digre - Socialist Party who tried but failed to steal our private property and our rights.
Maybe now these social engineers can get to the work of sustainably running our city. If they don't know how or if they don't want to, then they need to be voted out as quickly as possible. We want a smooth running city, respectful of the environment with a viable economy, better than average infrastructure and a real "rainy day" fund to mitigate emergencies. We want an honest and transparent government for ALL the people. We don't want any more illegitimate council members or dishonest elections.

Anonymous said...

hmmm maybe the voters are riled at council-- three previous tax measures defeated based on lack of council credibility.. and next year a pension bailout tax??

No on Measure C side won both the vote by mail tally and also day of election precinct voters.

Yes side apparently focused on renters north end of town, and that did not work. No side focused on warning homeowners council is not responsible and measure had a huge unfunded liability.

Anonymous said...

8:38 --

It's almost as if getting up in front of city council to state, "I believe the right wing in this town killed Jim Vreeland. I really mean that!" causes people to think you're a total kook and ignore everything you have to say about anything.

Anonymous said...

The 3 stooges that are the majority of this council need to start acting like responsible adults and quit dismantling this city.

Anonymous said...

The election result smackdown hasn't taught the Yes on C crowd anything. Instead of rethinking their tactics, they're doubling down and continuing to insult the 2/3rds of Pacifican who didn't drink the NIMBY kool-aid. I sense major changes afoot for Pacifica next November!

Anonymous said...

1201, I'd like to believe in your vision, but instead of addressing our looming pension crisis, the No Nothings on council will probably direct city staff to spend time drafting a stern-worded statement to Kim Jong-un about North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Steve Sinai said...

I'm really enjoying the sour grapes from the Yes on C crowd over on Nextdoor.

In response to the post-election demonization of "no" voters on Nextdoor, I had written the following comment. I figured I might as well copy it over here -

Stop with the demonization of anyone who voted no on C. It was a stupid campaign tactic that obviously wasn't effective, and makes it impossible for people on different sides of the issue to work together to come up with solutions to the high cost of housing.

I personally think Measure C lost because people have a fundamental problem with letting the government decide what prices private businesses can charge. The only places rent control wins public votes are cities where a majority, or near-majority, of people rent. That's not the case in Pacifica, and by not understanding that, the people responsible for Measure C made things even worse for renters. Pacifica landlords can't charge below-market rates anymore because they know they might get screwed if they do.

As I've said ad nauseum, the Bay Area needs more housing, and Pacifica needs to do its part. I'm not saying that because I'll make money from it. I won't. I'm saying it because I think it's the only thing that gets to the heart of the problem.

Go talk to whoever owns Harmony@1 these days and see if they'd be willing to build low and moderate income housing in exchange for the city removing many of the constraints which seem to be killing the development.

Work with the quarry owner and try to come up with something that provides low and moderate income housing there. I wasn't really crazy about his last proposal because it didn't provide enough commercial space, but it did provide for at least some affordable housing.

Stop appealing and filing lawsuits whenever someone wants to build new apartments. Even little three and four unit apartment projects get blocked.

I want to see if the people responsible for putting Measure C on the ballot, many of whom have consistently fought to prevent new housing in town for decades, really do care about providing more affordable housing. Or are they going to continue on with finding lame excuses for why new housing shouldn't be built in Pacifica?

Anonymous said...

The Yes on C crowd is really losing their shit and are blaming everyone and everything but themselves for this spectacular blowout.

If I were a renter, I'd be so incredibly pissed at the Yes on C campaign because: 1) quite a few landlords raised their rents to market levels in response to the possibility it could pass; and 2) they ran an amazingly crappy campaign; and 3) they ran SUCH an amazingly crappy campaign, they ruined any hope of trying for rent control again in the near future.

So thanks to Martin/Keener/Digre, renters just got F'd: the Yes on C campaign flushed $50k down the toilet and got rents RAISED. If they done nothing, renters would be better off today. Thanks for the "help" everyone! Amazing stuff.

LMAO said...

I'd have to say my favorite moment of the Yes on C dumpster fire was Jessica Armstrong's thousands (seriously: literally thousands!) of posts on Nextdoor accusing anyone who didn't support rent control as being greedy and cruel "money grubbers" who didn't want to provide affordable housing for grandmothers.

Then someone asked if she would support rezoning the Calson property on Pedro Point for residential use and she of course said "No."


Anonymous said...

I want to see if the people responsible for putting Measure C on the ballot, many of whom have consistently fought to prevent new housing in town for decades, really do care about providing more affordable housing. Or are they going to continue on with finding lame excuses for why new housing shouldn't be built in Pacifica?

What does your heart tell you?

Steve Sinai said...

They'll continue to refuse to allow new housing to be built.

Anonymous said...


Sweet Old Bob said...

5:02 My heart tells me that fewer car windows will be broken. Next up: run the RVs out of town. We are too close to SF and SV to tolerate this meth BS.

mike bell said...

The phony poverty lovers can't even sell their fake compassion for the critters any more.
They're running out of tactics to block any and all construction in Pacifica, including development of affordable housing.
The Pacifica Socialists offer nothing but canned hype, divisiveness and degradation of our fair town. The next big "Vreeland flip" will be Deirdre suddenly embracing growth and development. She's not very bright but she knows where the votes are. Don't encourage her.
We don't need any more of her deception and lack of integrity. Let's find some intelligent, high quality people with practical knowledge to run for council. As bad as things have gotten under the current 3-2 regime we need to keep working to salvage our city.

Anonymous said...

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, Scene2

Anonymous said...

Why the one side discussion? No mention of over $200,000 coming from Chicago or Los Angeles or Denver? Why do you guys only mention SAMCAR? Is that a way to try to localize the origins of the money?

Someone said they were shocked by how much money the Yes on C side collected, yet failed to mention the close to $400,000 coming mostly from industry groups for the No side. You don't understand why this is frustrating or concerning?

You say the Yes on C side is not learning, yet so much misinformation here makes me think your side is not learning.

And you think this changes Pacifica's NIMBYs to want to now build more? LOLOLOL ya right. Those tech bros buying $1,000,000 turds in Linda Mar don't want that. They want the beach and open hillsides in their newly discovered town.

In the end people voted for what works for them or didn't vote at all. Voting for ones own interest and apathy defeated Measure C. Homeowners don't care about renters, and many of the renters were too apathetic to leave the house to vote.

Don't fool yourself in thinking Pacifica is turning conservative. We'll never widen the highway and the quarry will eventually be donated to the public parks.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know whining was one of the stages of grief, 3:29.

Nice to see that you haven't learned a thing from this election. This wasn't a victory for any so-called conservative movement, it was a total and complete rejection of your vision of a Soviet Workers Collective in Pacifica and was an affirmation of personal rights and self-determination.

You are right that "we'll never widen the highway" so long as the No Nothings on council continue to prevent the public from voting on it just like they did five months ago or so. The vote on C shows you why they had the foresight to do this; the public rejected the latest version of their social experiment by a 2:1 margin. Too bad for them that they can't stop the November 2018 vote.

Is the quarry becoming a park supposed to be some of "gotcha?" If the owner wants to turn it into a park, good on him, because it's his land and despite your best efforts (lol) personal property rights still exist in this town. So he can do what he wants with his own property, except rezone it for housing apparently, because you hypocrites who are so so concerned about housing issues are against providing any additional housing.

Steve Sinai said...

Voters decided they didn't want to turn Pacifica into Venezuela. And nobody expect the NIMBYS to be OK with building any kind of new housing. We just like asking the question because it demonstrates their hypocrisy in pretending to care.

Anonymous said...

329 is going with the puppetmaster/rolling-with-the-punches defense. It's a coping mechanism. Their embarrassing loss was actually a win for the following reasons:

Sharon said...

Re Steve’s “hypocrisy” statement. For some time now I can’t help but feel that statement is very true. Many, many of the holier than thou obstructionists are property owners and they are not dumb property owners. I know they understand supply and demand economics, surely they know their obstructionism has served to increase the value of their homes and that passage of Prop C would have eventually led to more of the same. I hope those who have tied themselves to their coattails wakeup someday. I’m really sorry renters are having a tough time in the Bay Area, I would hate to be in their position. I would love to live in 90210 but, I knew I could never afford it and in my life have rented and eventually purchased and found employment in an area that I could afford . Pacifica has always been a blue collar place but life is not static and positioned as we are so close to SF, it’s not unreasonable to realize that the cost of living here would eventually match the location.

mike bell said...

It only takes three words to decipher the obstructionists' motivation. "I GOT MINE"

Steve Sinai said...

...or, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."

mike bell said...

.... or, "It's all mine as long as someone else pays for it".

Anonymous said...

Someone is going to jail. So said the LOE. A Law Enforcement Officer from the Attorney General's office is in my neighborhood going door to door. Someone forged some of my family members signatures and my neighbors signatures on some petition that was against the city council's ordinance, but the LOE would not be clear if it was for or against the rent control. So someone is in trouble. My family members don't even vote half the time and some have moved out so this is a big deal. Signatures were forged on a petition. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Dirty.

Inspector Gadget said...

11:05, I call bullshit. What neighborhood are you in? It would be pretty easy to verify your "story". Come on, just the neighborhood.

Will your conscience bother you after reading this..... said...

According to Facebook.....

There have been several evictions referred to the Resource Center since Tuesday. Apparently tenants holding out hope the voters would approve C and their cruel rent increases would be repealed. Sad but true, things havent worked out for them. If you have fair rent (below market) housing to offer for evicted individuals and families, please contact the Resource Center.

Smell Test Fail said...

The state Attorney General getting involved in a local petition and telling people “Someone is going to jail.”

Uh-huh. Lay off the Wild Turkey.

Anonymous said...

- 5;56, Does it rest easy on your conscience that Pacifica has been hindered from developing housing stock that is commiserate with increasing demand?

Keepin' It Real said...


It's too bad that the three No Nothings on council caused this mess. Many renters in Pacifica would be better off today had city council done nothing. They've really ruined quite a few lives and you should ask them about their conscience, not us.

Anonymous said...

What is very sad is the housing activist's lies and misdirection they steeped upon the renter population. These activists try to equate living some place as ownership. It is not! Rent is a temporary year to year or month to month arrangement. It doesn't matter if the occupant has lived in the same location for 1 year or 10 years as to who owns the property and what their rights are as owners. There are plenty of laws to protect renters but the law is the law and an owner is responsible for her property as well as its disposition, not the renter.
Definition of rent for English Language Learners
: to pay money in return for being able to use (something that belongs to someone else)
: to allow someone to use (something) in return for payment
: to be available for use in return for payment : to be for rent

Anonymous said...

The three idiots don't care that they've caused hardship. It's what they do.
They seek disruption at every turn which their stupid little brains perceive as opportunity.
There is nothing fruitful or productive about them. They just want power and they don't care how they get it or who they hurt.

Anonymous said...

4:08pm Inspector Gadget, Lindamar. Why would I post such a lie?? Wow. Call the AG's office. The Law Enforcement agent banged on my front door with a strong knock. My husband opened the door and a tall white male wearing kacki pants and dark blue/black polo type shirt with law enforcement label, wearing gun holster, official badges. He had dark brown hair and about 6'1". He had a copy of a petition (he did not know what it represented, but said they were considered forged signatures) signatures of three of my family members, on the copied petition he held in his hand, also my neighbors signatures, east of me. He went door to door. He said to me and my husband "someone is going to jail" I signed a petition months ago in front of Safeway and I remember the situation. There were two men who claimed to be Communists garnering signatures for Rent Control. Across from them was another man who was 'Against' garnering for signatures when I walked right into their civil battle. I signed the 'against' petition. But, when the LOE showed up at my door, saturday 11/11/17, my signature was no where on that petition but three of my family members were. Once again the LOE did not know what the petition was for. But my neighbors east of me, their names and signatures were also on the petition. I was thinking about that. I am always home. No one came to my front door asking to sign a petition for rent control, for or against. But a year ago John Keener was on my street banging doors garnering signatures against widening the Highway one, I signed that petition. Interesting. So, back around spring time is when signatures for rent control for and against were being garnered in front of Safeway. Over a year ago is when John Keener was banging doors on my street and he asked me to sign his petition for against widening the highway. I signed his petition. No one else did in my family because they are never around at that time of day and two of my family names on that petition do not even live with me and have not for years. Someone is in a lot of trouble.

Anonymous said...

Keener / Martin / Digree need to think long and hard about what they just did: many renters in Pacifica are now far worse off because of them.

This isn't some F-ing game. These dumb social experiments have real consequences and they affect real people. Congrats on making people's live measurably harder in Pacifica!

Anonymous said...


I find it hard to believe that the state Attorney General's office is getting involved in something where the District Attorney has jurisdiction, but judging from your mess of a post, I don't think you even know what day it is.

Lieutenant Columbo said...

I call shenanigans, the imaginative writer is saying the officer wore a short sleeved shirt.

According to the weather report for 11/11/17, it was pretty cold out yesterday, hardly the weather for anyone to logically go out in short sleeves. In this sort of matter, they'd send out someone in a blazer, white shirt and tie.

Observations on November 11, 2017:
Time Temp Wind Conditions
12:40 AM PST 57.9 °F 0.0 mph Mostly Cloudy
12:56 AM PST 57.9 °F 0.0 mph Overcast
1:56 AM PST 57.0 °F 0.0 mph Overcast
2:56 AM PST 57.0 °F 4.6 mph Overcast
3:56 AM PST 57.0 °F 0.0 mph Overcast
4:56 AM PST 57.0 °F 4.6 mph Overcast
5:40 AM PST 54.0 °F 3.5 mph Scattered Clouds
5:56 AM PST 54.0 °F 3.5 mph Scattered Clouds
6:09 AM PST 55.0 °F 0.0 mph Mostly Cloudy
6:56 AM PST 57.0 °F 0.0 mph Mostly Cloudy
7:17 AM PST 55.9 °F 3.5 mph Mostly Cloudy
7:56 AM PST 55.9 °F 0.0 mph Scattered Clouds
8:56 AM PST 60.1 °F 0.0 mph Mostly Cloudy
9:56 AM PST 61.0 °F 3.5 mph Scattered Clouds
10:56 AM PST 61.0 °F 6.9 mph Mostly Cloudy
11:56 AM PST 62.1 °F 6.9 mph Mostly Cloudy
12:56 PM PST 62.1 °F 6.9 mph Mostly Cloudy
1:56 PM PST 63.0 °F 5.8 mph Mostly Cloudy
2:56 PM PST 62.1 °F 6.9 mph Mostly Cloudy
3:56 PM PST 62.1 °F 12.7 mph Scattered Clouds
4:56 PM PST 59.0 °F 11.5 mph Scattered Clouds
5:56 PM PST 57.9 °F 11.5 mph Scattered Clouds
6:56 PM PST 57.0 °F 10.4 mph Scattered Clouds
7:56 PM PST 55.9 °F 9.2 mph Partly Cloudy
8:56 PM PST 55.9 °F 6.9 mph Scattered Clouds
9:56 PM PST 55.0 °F 4.6 mph Scattered Clouds
10:56 PM PST 55.9 °F 3.5 mph Mostly Cloudy
11:56 PM PST 54.0 °F 4.6 mph Mostly Cloudy


Anonymous said...

9:47 Anon, I may have the office wrong. But, he was Law Enforcement. It said it on his shirt, badge and gun on hip.

Anonymous said...

9:47 Anon, I am calling the City Council. Even though you seem highly agitated by my posts will not deter me from finding out wtf happened and why my family members were on a petition they never signed. Someone is nervous. Deal with it.

Anonymous said...

I think 9:47 is just confusing the Attorney General and the District Attorney.

Steve Sinai said...

9:47 post is bs. Purely sour grapes on the part of the Yes on C peeps.

Anonymous said...

Steve Sinai, I voted against the Yes on C. So why would I post a lie? A Law Enforcement Officer was in my neighborhood 11/11/17 early afternoon. He had a copy of a "petition" he would not specify what the "petition" of signatures was for. He clearly stated what he was doing. He said he was verifying if my husband signed the "petition" my husband told him, "That is not my signature". Two of our kids names and signatures were also on that "petition" and neighbors east of me were also on that "petition". My two kids signatures were forged. He had Law Enforcement badge, gun in holster and shirt. He was not messing around. He also said, "someone is going to jail" Do I need to send you a video of my neighbors backing this up? Better yet I am calling the San Mateo elections office. I am pissed that my family members signatures were forged. I am the only one ever home. The three of my family members together signing any "petition" never happened.

Anonymous said...

I do have a question. I read that the petitions were not even need for the rent control issue because it was on the ballot anyway. So, what "petition" did he have a copy of? I will find out. Even if you pukes are still in denial.

Anonymous said...

"My husband opened the door and a tall white male wearing kacki pants and dark blue/black polo type shirt with law enforcement label, wearing gun holster, official badges. He had dark brown hair and about 6'1."

@9:47- I'm pretty sure that was Sgt. Ron - a male stripper hired for a birthday party two doors down.

Anonymous said...

Haha @ 4:13.

I love how this story keeps changing with every telling. Pretty soon we'll find out it was the girls scouts going door-to-door selling cookies.

Anonymous said...

Interesting reaction. Guilty a little? I will find out.

Fast and Loose! said...

I saw two videos on riptide a few months ago, and it appeared the signature gatherer's out at Safeway were either playing fast and loose, or just were dumb and ill informed....and in the video, the guy and ladies are calling them on it. The signature gatherers appeared to be non-local. Here they are:


So, If there really was or were to be an investigation, as the Yes on C people claimed before last Tuesday, I would say to those "professional signature gatherers", who probably have collected signatures for all sorts of measures in all sorts of places, that they played fast and loose on the wrong election in the wrong community. For all I know, the motivation to cheat was high, I don't know how signature gatherers are compensated, but I'm guessing either hourly with bonus, or they may have been purely paid per signature.

This may be a banner case for Jerry Hill or some other legislator to take up, if in fact a significant number of signatures were bogus, to increase penalties for collecting bogus signatures.

I am thinking fait that without doubt, there will be some sort of litigation regarding Measure C. I am no lawyer, and don't know how it would play out. Would the election have to be invalidated? How long would it be tied up in the courts if Yes on C were to request an injunction against the election result? Perhaps a brother or sister who is admitted to the bar could illuminate.

I am guessing that the signature gatherers sign the petitions they collect, under penalty of perjury, that the signatures they collected are authentic and not the result of coercion or fraud, and if they are scamming those who hired them, I have a big problem with that and they should "go to jail" like the investigator says.

If they forged 9:47's family member's signatures, I'm sure hoping they signed their own names and did not forge some other innocent party's as "paid signature gatherer"! I am guessing Samcar hired a consultant who hires independent contractors to go out and get signatures who fill out job applications which kept somewhere safe.......I looked in google....http://www.progcamp.com/ as an example of such an outfit, but unaware of who SAMCAR or No on C may have used in fact.

Anonymous said...

8:06 - Do you understand what you've been smoking?

Could you go have a read at 3:46?
So what exactly are you on about?

Are you threatening that you will litigate the ballot results?

Anonymous said...

Of the 28 precincts only 2 precincts voted in majority for "Yes on C".
All the other 26 precincts voted in majority for "No on C".

Anonymous said...


Steve Sinai said...

I watched the two videos mentioned previously. In the first, the signature gatherer was correct. The city council did vote to impose rent control, and he said so. It was temporary rent control until the city-wide vote, but it was still rent control. That's what the petitions were meant to overturn. The second video was just people complaining to the signature gatherer that they wanted rent control.

Steve Sinai said...

It's easy to make accusations if you're anonymous. If the person who insisted an investigator came to their house used their real name, I might be inclined to believe them more.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, a case of sour grapes.

The point of litigation insinuated by the anonymous poster (if I understand it correctly) is because the signatures gathered to petition for election "maybe fraudulent (insert 6' 1" man story here)" then the election results should themselves be invalidated.

They can't litigate the election outcome because it was decisive.
I feel both embarrassed and pitiful for the poster.

Anonymous said...

There's a thread about this on Nextdoor. Several people say an officer came to their doors and showed them their forged signatures on the peptition. Their real names are there for all to see. The point of this is not to litigate the election results. The point is that a signature gatherer forged signatures. That's a serious crime and the person (or persons) should be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

newsflash: nothing will happen

Anonymous said...

Steve Sinai said...
It's easy to make accusations if you're anonymous. If the person who insisted an investigator came to their house used their real name, I might be inclined to believe them more.

November 12, 2017 at 11:05 PM

The person who posted on Nextdoor used his real name. I happen to know him and he has been a long time Pacifica resident. I believe him.

Steve Sinai said...

I look at Nextdoor all the time and have seen nothing about anyone investigating petition signatures, at least in the neighborhood group I'm in.

Anonymous said...

This is what's wrong with Nextdoor. I can't see things in threads started in neighborhoods near me, but I see things from neighborhoods in San Bruno, not even in Pacifica!

I tried to post the whole thread here but it's too long – 60 posts in the thread, in 14 neighborhoods. A couple of the people posting who said they were visited at their door by an officer from the DA who showed them their forged signatures are Stanley Jack Brown and Rachelle Bresnahan.

Anonymous said...

A "long time Pacifica resident", you mean like Peter Loeb.
I'm convinced this is just more of the goofy stuff Cynthia Kaufman and Deirdre Martin are making up to twist another election their way.
I hope they litigate. Don't waste time on these lying Socialists. No credibility at all.

Anonymous said...

Stanley Jack Brown, Linda Mar1
Just had a visit from The DA,s office about the petiions to put Prop C on the ballot.
Just had a visit from a rep from the DA,s office. It seems That back when the prop c people were gathering signatures to put C on the ballot There were paid by the signature folks out getting signatures. It seems my name and a lot of folks around me were shown as having signed that petition. I did not and would never have signed it. There it was big as life. Both myself and my were shown to have signed it. We did not. Several of my neighbors were on there and were shown as having signed when they did not, I only saw a small sample of my street. We can only guess how big this fraud was.
To all the Angels who were out there claiming the the high road This is the road you were really on.When you cry wolf all the time you are usually hiding something.
I hope the DA,s office will make the findings public.

Anonymous said...

The amount of time people waste denying, denying. @Lieutenant Dumbo, what a moronic statement. Omg. But you will love this. After looking at my surveillance camera the officer even had a limp. I am not litigating anything. What is upsetting is someone is forging signatures. I think we need to take this seriously. SMH. Bunch of morons.

Anonymous said...

The officer also stated, for each signature gathered they get paid $5.00. This is serious. And I hate socialists and commies. But we need fair elections. Almost makes me think the lying Clintons and friends are running the show.

Opie said...

You guys have a serious mental disorder and are removed from reality. 4:49 and 4:57 sound like the same guy and the council put this thing on the ballot. there was no petition. WTF
litigate the shit out of it you goobers.

Anonymous said...

Fake Nextdoor postings. Limping animal control officers posing as signature police. Forgeries on documents that don’t even exist. And don’t forget a “strong, forceful knock.” On the head, that is. Evidence of a serious concussion here or just a Terra Nova grad.

Anonymous said...

6:50 "There was no petition." Boy, are you out of it. Yeah, and there wes no election either. Nothing happened. Now go back in your cave.

Pressed Into Service said...

This happened to me too!

It was a dark and stormy night when I heard a rap-rap-rapping on my front portcullis.

"Whozza?" I croaked.

"Nevermore" was the response.

I quickly consulted my surveillance camera (the peephole) and saw before my bewildered eye a badge, struck out of pure etherium that said, CIA: Faked Signature Division.

I opened the iron-bound portal and beheld what appeared to be a pirate with a patch over one eye, a wooden peg-leg (that explained the limping), and a parrot upon his shoulder. Well...maybe more of a finch sort of thing. I'm no ornithologist.

"Is this your signature? Cuz someone is walking the plank, matey!" boomed the CIA pirate as he thrust a crumpled dry-cleaning receipt in my face."

"Uh...yes? Maybe? No!"

The parrot-finch squawked, I squeaked, and I slammed the iron-bound door shut.

Then I did what any normal human would do when they wanted to get to the bottom of an extremely believable story that totally happened: I went straight to my mechanical computer and posted the not-made-up tale to Fix Pacifica.

Bah. Save your mockery, you scallywags! For tomorrow I shall visit the Port of Pacifica where I shall have strong words with the Harbor Master.

Anonymous said...

My dude, just fess up and come clean. No LOE (lol wtf?) knocked on anyone’s door and said someone’s going to jail. Give us a break.

Anonymous said...

LOL. 6:50 says you guys have a serious mental disorder and in the same post says there was no petition. We all imagined it? 6:50 is the one with the serious mental disorder.

Anonymous said...

Rachelle Bresnahan, Linda Mar·2d ago
They came to our home today as well. Both mine and my husband’s signatures were falsified. In addition, they used my maiden name which I️ have not used in over 5+ years. It was very jarring to see them at my front door, gun on belt with shield visibly present. Indication that this is an escalated matter and being taken very seriously.

Anonymous said...


You're posting fake stories and are insisting they're true, but we've got the mental disorders. Uh huh. Whatever you say, Kojak.

Pycho Cyrus said...

Hey fellow mentals, can you explain exactly what the petition was for. Not even exactly, just ball park it. did it have anything to do with the election this month?

Mantal said...

Apparently, some of you missed important events and city council actions. The council passed an interim rent stabilization ordinance that protected renters from enormous rent increases prior to the election. The council also placed the rent stabilization ordinance on the ballot. The California Apartment Association then circulated a petition. If they got enough signatures of registered voters, the effect of the petition was to invalidate the interim ordinance, allowing apartment owners to raise rents as much as they wanted before the election. Paid signature gatherers were in front of Safeways, at the post office, and other places. They also went door to door. The petition had enough signatures so that the council was forced to cancel the interim ordinance. The problem was that the signature gatherers told people that the petition was supporting rent control when in effect it was just the opposite. They also said the petition was to put it on the ballot when the council had already done that. Now it turns out that some of the signatures were forged and the DA is investigating. It won't change the outcome of the election, but forgery is a serious crime and should be prosecuted. Whether anything will happen remains to be seen. Don't hold your breath.

Smell Test said...

We’re supposed to believe that a man with a gun and a badge who never identified what department he was working for, said “Someone is going to jail” and then asked you if you signed something, but never let you know what it was you had supposedly signed.

Doesn’t this strike you as being a little unbelievable?

Anonymous said...

Fake Fake Fake. Just like the fake tears for the under-housed, the fake concern for red-legged frogs and snakes, the fake facts about seal level rise, the fake competency of council persons Deirdre, Keener and Digre. Vote these impostors out. Expose these commie/socialists and their leader Cynthia Kaufman for who they really are. Reclaim our city and hope that there is still time to repair all of the damage they have wrought.
It's time for the adults to stand up and send these selfish children to their rooms.

Anonymous said...

Psycho Cyrus, c'mon now, it's all very clear.

It was the Attorney General or it was the District Attorney or it was the curb number painter who sharply knocked on a random person's door to tell them someone was going to jail about the Yes on C petition or the No on C petition even though John Keener knocked on the door a year earlier. All done in a short sleeve polo.

Serious business. Very, very serious business.

Anonymous said...

This whole Measure C mess reminds me of the old adage where a police officer sees a drunken man intently searching the ground near a lamppost and asks him the goal of his quest. The inebriate replies that he is looking for his car keys, and the officer helps for a few minutes without success then he asks whether the man is certain that he dropped the keys near the lamppost. “No,”is the reply, “I lost the keys somewhere across the street.” “Why look here?” asks the surprised and irritated officer. “Because the light is much better here,” the intoxicated man responds.

So for those who require that I spell it out for you, here it is: IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN THIS UBER HIGH PRICED OASIS WE CALL THE`BAY AREA, MOVE! It really is that simple. People have been doing this since Christ was a kid. Why is it that throughout the span of world history, it is only now that we require big brother to intercede and keep this from happening? What's next? (hint: this is a rhetorical question)

Anonymous said...


Kathy Meeh (it's not that simple) said...

958, well, NIMBIES should be supporting affordable housing, and more realistic rent control if their alleged housing concern for lower income people were sincere.
Fact, the community in this City (and others) includes (and needs) lower income people.

Based upon decades of NIMBY anti-housing neglect and planning obstruction, clearly NIMBIES are more interested in a voting block, rather than helping others who previously may not have been brought into their coalition myth, which in actuality supports "nothing for Pacifica".

Of course the Christ example divided the bread and fed the multitudes. Hence, Christ would not have subscribed to the narrow "got mine" attitude, you've suggested as: "... MOVE! It really is that simple. People have been doing this since Christ was a kid."
(Then again, possibly you're suggesting human communities should back-up social evolution (and reduce the size of our tribal populations 2,000+ years.-- that doesn't sounding like a plan to me.)

Anonymous said...

@ Small Test 8:17, Yes, I agree. It struck me as very odd. Especially since he would not allow me to look closer. I have him on surveillance. He was dropped off in a dark grey car, he was not driving. He sat in passenger seat a good 5 minutes before stepping out. Then the car he arrived in drove off heading east. He limped up to my gate. Very odd indeed.

The Local Libertarian said...


Wages are driven by cost of living. And rent/housing expense is a major constituent of cost of living in general. And more so in Bay Area.

If we don't solve the cost of living problem for the low wage workers, you can be assured of wage inflation across the board. And by extension rising living costs for everyone. And a certain economic implosion. You may not yet have experienced economic implosion, but the fact of lack of affordable housing is evidence of every day implosion for many people.

When that happens, you'll end up with a Golden Goose and starving. And soon without the Golden Goose. Don't be stupid.

Housing should not be a primary asset. It is however a primary expense.
That it is considered an equitable and a primary asset is a symptom of the toxicity and of our economic system.

Anonymous said...

@2:09 – In recent times, companies/employers hardly even consider the cost of living index with respect to salaries. This is confirmed by the fact that the vast majority of companies no longer include cost of living allowances in their compensation packages. Once again, it is the supply/demand model that dictates most of the financial decisions companies make on a day to day basis. Today’s employment marketplace is one which is primarily a buyer’s market. As such, employers will pay whatever they can get away with and very little consideration is given to the equities of the employee.

Decades ago, when I was looking for work and a place to live, I was forced to make difficult decisions whose outcomes were of a significant inconvenience to me. Although I preferred to work and live in San Francisco, the jobs and lower rents were in the South Bay – Silicon Valley. No one, most of all Uncle Sam, offered to subsidize my lifestyle so that I could remain in SF. Since the mountain would not come to Mohammed, I was forced to go to where the work was, i.e., San Jose. I was not alone. And when the jobs continued to migrate south but the living opportunities (i.e., homes, apartments) could no longer keep pace, rents increased to a point where many were forced to move even further away to outlying areas like Tracy and Salinas for affordability. This is how supply and demand works. Some even chose to live out of their cars during the week and return to their relocated far-away home on the weekend in order to mitigate commute issues, e.g., traffic congestion, travel expenses. There were no rent controls. No subsidies. No one was feeling sorry for us. We were grownups and had learned the hard lessons of self-sustenance for survival. In fact, quite a few opted to take employment overseas, e.g., the Middle East, at great personal inconvenience, through prolific employers like Saudi Aramco. This was done for survival purposes as well as to build the foundations of something we no longer hear about in today’s economic world of bail-outs and subsidies – i.e., a personal savings account.

Anonymous said...

Dear 10:48, today the victim mentality looms large and is fostered by the activists who make a living off of emboldening people into thinking that being poor isn't their doing, they are hard working folks at minimum pay jobs, and don't ever think twice how they spent their lives preparing for adulthood and that life isn't fair. My dad was orphaned at birth, had a 5th grade education, and lived moving from place to place working as a farmhand until he was old enough to enlist in the service. Well he made it out, got married, was a blue collar worker his whole life but never, ever, blamed others, or went to people who said, there, there, its not your fault it is greedy people who made better life decisions as to education and how they spent their time or planned for their family. So one big kiss off to all those that have it so, so hard and haven't looked deep into themselves to see they are where they are because of what they didn't accomplish in their lives. With half the renters having only a high school or less education -- what do they expect, to have others make up for their short comings and the cost of living in the Bay Area? Get a grip on personal responsibility. Most people are what they are and where they are because of how they spent their time and the quality of their thinking. Don't expect a hard working property owner to pave your way with subsidies that cut into their planning for the future of their families and livelihood.

Anonymous said...

12:27 condensed version: if you're poor, it's your own damn fault. Don't expect any help from me.

Anonymous said...

1:21, yes of sorts for some, but not entirely for others. And affordable housing is needed and necessary. I just don't believe that many property owners are inherently bad or greedy. Of course there are some of that ilk. I also don't believe in an activist who comes to town and says here lets see what I can improve in the life of some renters and then introduces language that is quite detrimental to the property owner tho that's a different subject.

Anonymous said...

affordable housing solution
1. political will on council
2. available land
3. funding-- pass a tax measure everyone pays into.
4. rehab existing--gotta buy building
5. reduce environmental hassles stopping approval or jacking up costs to deal-killing level.
6. neighborhood buy-in around project.
7. stay out of west of Hwy 1 because coastal commission will drive u crazy.

pacifica possesses none of these ingredients. Stop arguing about affordable. No one cares to make it happen.

Anonymous said...

Pacifica's version of Rent Control was incubated and hatched by Cynthia Kaufman (local commie) and Deirdre Martin (Philadelphia export - council wanna be) to manipulate public emotion and grab power. These two creeps do not have authentic compassion for the poor or any one else. Their motivation was political power with zero regard for the people who were harmed by their evil stage play.

Anonymous said...

Cynthia Kaufman is an engaging and dynamic academic. Here she is giving a lecture a few weeks ago about her book and answering questions from students at De Anza College. An interesting hour dichotomizing capitalism if you have the time


Anonymous said...

5:13 This post is either written by Cynthia Kaufman herself or her robot Deirdre Martin.
Either way it is symptomatic of the sickness that is taking control and destroying Pacifica.
The good news is that communism eventually consumes itself.
The bad news is that it spawns a huge amount of human collateral damage along the way.

Anonymous said...

One does not have to look any farther than those that despise Capitalism and those that support it. Those that despise it want rent control by and large as do the majority of people that don't own property. I do commend this blog versus Riptide which is definitely the voice of non-property owners and socialistic minded residents. Carl & John are you reading this!?

Sharon said...

@ 8:41 kinda beg to differ, many who read Riptide do own property. Next, listened to the Cynthia Kaufman video posted by 5:13, very interesting but got a kick out her referral to "the local right wing blog. Lastly, if you haven't lived in or visited a communist/socialist country - I urge you to do so. If you want to get an eye opener about how it really is. Been there, done that and, while our system is so not perfect, I would certainly not want to live in Russia or Venezuela or China or North Korea etc etc.

The Local Libertarian said...

I think Cynthia Kaufman is an idiot.
Communism requires revolution. The authors of Communist Manifesto clearly acknowledge this.

From the Communist Manifesto:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

This whole notion of Humanist Communism is just tripe and balderdash.

The fundamental requirement for humans are:
1) Assured Security of Existence (Clean Air, Clean Water, Nutritious Food, Shelter & Clothing -- in that order)
2) An ability to freely express, communicate, associate, partake, create with others in pursuit of richer experiences and life, liberty, happiness while not compromising #1 for themselves or others.
That is it.

80 yrs of Communism, its attendant atrocities and its demise is proof enough why Communism doesn't work. Please do not encourage communism for anything more than academic purposes and understanding of how not to run political economies.

i CALL them as i SEE them said...

I took the time to watch the video and made the following notes:
She was selling her book at the lecture, at cost. And said free electronic versions were available. That is pretty capitalistic, hehe.

She mentioned 'I live in Pacifica and one of the right wing blogs said I, a teacher was living on the dole".

She said, more or less that she supports redistribution of wealth and authoritorian socialism.

I would suffer to say that most of the students, during the Q&A, some foreign born, called BS on her view of Socialism.

I agree with 5:13 that she is a good speaker, charismatic, etc, however, in spite of that, she could not make sale to her neighbors in the Vallemar precinct, the majority of which voted No on C. Her influence in Vallemar and Pacifica has greatly diminshed since school board days. Between her rants at Council, Pacifica Democrats and her book which we can magnify ad nauseum, I think her political future in Pacifica is more or less finished, other than devising clever smear campaigns and machiavellian (ends justify the means) intrigues and plots like Nihart-gate.

Markus said...

I’m still very unsettled about the way Martin so unethically and deceitfully was elected to council last November, which resulted in the majority of 3 councilmembers with an agenda to basically destroy this town. My nightmarish thoughts of what they will do, became apparent rather quickly when they gave a contract to recommend alternatives for our local plan for coastal development, to ESA aka Bob Battalio aka Managed Retreat. As if coastal home or property owners, will give up or walk away from their property when the city tells them they must move due to sea encroachment. We’re talking about hundreds if not thousands of Pacifica property owners with a total value of well over a billion dollars. I don’t think this will ever happen without a huge class legal action by the owners. The city council must do everything currently available, to shore up our coastline. This is what they are expected to do! I have been a homeowner here for 35 years. Hiring ESA was one of the most divisive acts by our council, I have ever witnessed.
Next, they decide it would be a good idea to initiate rent control in a city made of 68% homeowners? What? Obviously, no clue. Next they make our city a Sanctuary City? Why?! What will they tell these illegal, sorry my bad, “undocumented” immigrants arriving here looking for sanctuary and a place to live? I’m hoping these 3 council members will make some room available in their homes to accommodate these folks. I certainly will be looking to see exactly where these people wind up living. My guess is in some of our overabundant open spaces.
From my observations of city council actions in the past few years. John Keener is by far the most dangerous, with Martin doing everything he tells her to do. Sue Digre, well she has an excuse. Just about every statement I’ve heard her make over the years, absolutely made little sense. I’m so relieved she can’t run for yet another term.
I’ll finish my rant by saying how ironic it is that the property owners pay for nearly everything with their property taxes, including our city’s governance and Council. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. One more thing. Keener and Martin have only lived here for a few years. I can’t hardly wait to see what they come up with to solve the commute traffic on HWY 1. Keener mentioned the alternative solutions to widening. Ha, ha. Been hearing that for some 25 years.

Steve Sinai said...

"I can’t hardly wait to see what they come up with to solve the commute traffic on HWY 1."

Last I heard, when Digre figured out that her beloved intelligent traffic system wouldn't work at Reina Del Mar and Fassler, she decided to expand it to include Crespi and Linda Mar Ave. When she figured out that wouldn't work, she decided the solution was intelligent traffic signals all the way between Half Moon Bay and Pacifica.

Martin thinks bike paths are a major solution. Keener has always been opposed to any real fixes for the highway.

Anonymous said...

RIPTIDE is the home for everything that is wrong with Political Correctness and the smug people who think they know everything.

Anonymous said...

Martin, Keener and Kaufman are the worst things that have ever offended Pacifica.
No clue. No scruples. No empathy. Weirdly Trumpish.

Anonymous said...

LOL. The 2 council members who have demonstrated that they have no scruples and no empathy are Mike O'Neill and Sue Vaterlaus.

Anonymous said...

Wrong Peter
Mike O'Neill and Sue Vaterlaus care about the WHOLE city and ALL of it's residents.
The Three Stooges only care about their self centered friends and manipulating the political landscape to set up future unethical and illegitimate elections.
The liars will eventually be exposed. The question is, will it happen before the city completely collapses.

Anonymous said...

Mike O'Neill and Sue Vaterlaus lied.

Anonymous said...

"I believe the right wing in this town killed Jim Vreeland. No, I really mean that!" -Cynthia Kaufman

Kaufman and Krew like to play shadow council in their spare time and pretend they're movers and shakers. The Martin campaign was their last hurrah and despite all their organizational efforts they only succeeded because of they worked to get Nihart removed from the ballot on a technicality. A real victory for the democratic process! They wouldn't have won otherwise, which is of course why a certain someone was rewarded with a planning commissioner spot. Ain't that right, 8:39?

Kaufman's Krew is loyal, but they no longer have the numbers in this town and they continue to marginalize themselves. C was the death knell. These guys are done and 2018 is going to show everyone how the tide has turned. The hippies are dying off and the younger residents in this town expect a community that invests in itself. They're not buying $900,000 homes here so they can live in a ramshackle third world shithole.

Anonymous said...

Riptide has been getting their candidates elected since it's inception.

Please carry on!

Anonymous said...

riptide Measure C promo failed miserably. Dummer for rip & self congratulating 2:49.....

Anonymous said...

Riptide— ever notice if you question scarcasm and derogatory comments coming from those other than the Carl’s, Peters, and Ian’s of the world that J. Maybury conveniently edits those out but let’s his cronies spew forth? Liberal bias is just the beginning of these folks and cry babies to boot'!

The Local Libertarian said...

@2:49 -- so you accept a "faction" exists, which manipulates local elections to their benefit. I mean it is obvious. But, I am glad you speak plainly of the obvious.

Whatever this agenda is, they've proven themselves to be utterly disingenuous and not above using subterfuge, litigation and manipulation at the cost of many.

Crimson Tide said...

Riptide's blessing did not make a win for Measure C indeed. Why? Riptide's influence seems to be on the wane as the result of gentrification chasing out
left wing readers to move out of the bay area and to other states. This may be a turning point, and in November 2018, we will see: Pro-Widening, Pro-Quarry, Pro-Library and anti-Managed Retreat candidates win. Increasing density at Harmony at One with apartments and condos will help make Pacifica a workerforce housing paradise.....also possible. All of the above is why I'm hoping Eric Ruchames throws his hat in for our upcoming election to replace John Keener or Sue Digre. Riptiders what do you think of that?

The Local Libertarian said...

@Crimson Tide -- Moderation is key. We don't way to swing all the way to the far right. We know the same idiots pop out the extreme right as they do on the extreme left.

In the meanwhile, let us not get too excited about the future not knowing how it will ultimately transpire. Regardless, and ideologies aside, we should always try to find a middle ground that is functional for everyone.

Anonymous said...

You're saying that Eric Ruchames is a Pro-Widening, Pro-Quarry, Pro-Library and anti-Managed Retreat candidate. This is good to know. When he ran before, he wouldn't take a position on anything.

Crimson Tide said...

@939 Granted I do too remember him being ambivalent on a number of issues in 2014 as were O"neill and other candidates, Eric after all attended H1Alternatives meetings, but would not commit in public forums on widening. You would have to quiz him personally as I have not, and only speculate on his opinions here. 2014 is a long time ago, and his views may have evolved. Ruchammes would have definitely won if it were not for all the other candidates running with similar platforms.

As a SAMCAR candidate in 2014, and possibly again blessed in 2018, I would expect him to vote in alignment with Mike and Sue.
SAMCAR has the best interests of Pacifica property owners in mind, and as a property owner, I would expect nothing less than support for all of those issues. The majority of voters in Pacifica did not vote in the rent control / weed election. The silient majority did not care to support Measure C and even bother to vote at all. Might have done better in an energized presidential election like when Obama was elected.

Anonymous said...

Not true. He was pro-library. The one who lied was the Dragon Lady.

Anonymous said...

Ruchames was a SAMCAR candidate? That's news. I wonder what Eric would say about that. Another candidate from the real estate machine.

Helpful Harold said...



Anonymous said...

Thank you Helpful Harold. That was helpful. From the endorsements, you could also say Ruchames was a union/labor candidate.

Dadbod Apocalypse said...

Crimson Tide has it right.

Ruchames never took a public position on anything. When he spoke, it was all in political platitudes about moving Pacifica forward and doing what's best for the residents, blah, blah, blah. Never any concrete positions or specifics opinions about a single thing. I guess he didn't want to risk taking a stance and alienating people who disagreed with him, but when you don't stand for anything, you stand for nothing. He never gave anyone a reason to vote for him.