Text and picture from online Pacifica Tribune Questions (Part 2), 10/6/10.
The Pacifica Tribune sent
questionnaires to all nine City Council candidates. Eight of the
nine responded to the following six questions. Their responses
are published in their entirety. This is the second
of two parts with responses from Susan Vellone, Heather Tanner,
Sue Digre and Barbara Arietta. The responses from Tom Clifford,
William "Leo" Leon, Len W. Stone and Jim Vreeland appeared
online (9/30/10).
1. What is
your background, training and experience that qualifies you to
manage the affairs of a city of 40,000 people. Please include
your occupation and principle sources of income. First,
I think it's important to note that I am not a politician. Other
than an election in high school, this is the only political campaign
I have ever run. Some may find my being so new to the party
difficult. I feel I am exactly what Pacifica needs. I have no
preconceived notions over what our government should do, I only have
ideas over what our government should do. I am not jaded, nor am I
aligned with any one group. In fact, I purposefully withdrew myself
from the endorsement process as I did not want to be beholden to
anyone or any group's vision. The only opinions I want to endorse
are of the people of Pacifica. As an attorney, I have experience in
reading, interpreting and applying laws. I understand the legal
consequences of actions the board has taken in the past. I have
developed strategies for keeping clients out of lawsuits, which it
seems this city could use. Finally, I have experience in mediating
disputes to successful resolution and negotiating contracts. I know
how to read a contract to insure it protects the interests of
Pacifica. I am trained in conflict resolution. I believe what we
need on this council are people who can bring different opinions to
the table and still make decisions. Finally, I understand the
urgency of our citizens who are out of work to become re-employed. I
understand their sense of frustration with the lack of
responsiveness of our government to this national crisis. The
government may have declared the recession over, but that is news to
the nearly 10% of Pacificans still struggling to find work. My goals
are to bring jobs to Pacifica, while keeping interim support
services going.
2. What is your position on the future
use of the quarry, including the possibility of residential
units. I understand No on L was not just about
development in the quarry, but also about how the development was
being handled by the developer and our council. People were
concerned about the lack of accountability in the contract. The vote
had nothing to do with finalizing the proposed plans, only to give
the developer permission to provide housing units with the
commercial development he proposed. Nothing prevented the developer
from tacking the approval and completely changing everything he
proposed to something a majority of the voters did not want. So, do
I think a proposed development could work in the quarry? Yes, I do.
I don't know that it's the best location given the physical
limitations of the space. I also don't know that it's the right
space to develop a business center for Pacifica. First, we have the
traffic limitations. Second, we have such a beautiful area — what
could be so important as to take that away — especially when we have
other, more viable areas? Still, if it were deemed the best location
for developing a business center, I would proceed with great care.
Pacifica cares about the environment. I would not want to work with
any contractor or developer that did not have a good track record
for environmentally friendly policies. Any developer/contractor
would need to provide proof of their record on the environment. What
have they done lately? Second, it would be grossly important to
obtain public opinion — good and bad. We want Pacifica to use any
development we are going to build. What do Pacificans want in a
business center? What don't they want? Obviously, we will never
please everyone — but, we can strive to create a business center
that meets everyone in the middle. The key is balance. We must
balance the needs of our community versus the wishes of our
community. We cannot allow one set of desires to overtake the
priorities of our community — which are, as I see them, lessening
our impact on the environment and creating a long-term sustainable
economy. Finally, and this might frustrate some of you, but I will
not make a decision on any proposed development until I am satisfied
that I have the facts in front of me. Pacifica has had enough rash
decisions that have cost us dearly. We have never seen the quarry
developed despite
throwing lots of money towards it. We have never
seen the old waste water treatment plant renovated despite
throwing
lots of money towards it and despite the fact that it is a health
hazard. I am not against development and I am for the environment. I
think we can, and must, balance those two needs in our community.
3. For more than 20 years, Pacifica has
debated a Highway 1 congestion solution. Where do you stand
on the proposed expansion plan Caltrans and the
Transportation Authority has presented? Anyone
who has tried to commute into or out of Pacifica during commute
times knows we have a congestion problem. Like it or not, to go from
one end of town to the other, we have only one way out. Imagine what
would happen if a major accident, spill, or other foreseeable
problem happened on our highway. Imagine what the town would do if
we needed to evacuate in an emergency? How would emergency vehicles
get to where they were needed if everyone was headed on Highway 1?
In light of what happened in San Bruno, I don't see how we cannot
address this problem. The pros for a fix to the Highway 1
congestion, to me, are highly beneficial to Pacifica. First, we
provide relief to the morning and afternoon commute. We also
increase the ability of people outside
Pacifica to come in to town
for things like Fogfest. If we are going to get serious about
developing a business district, then we need to make it accessible
to outside funds. Right now, our town is not accessible or perceived
as accessible on days of increased traffic. We cannot even begin to
analyze all of the cons to see if they can be ameliorated without an
EIR. Pacifica is concerned with the environment and with cost.
Sometimes, we will have to spend money to save money. If we want to
increase business in town, we have to provide a way for it to get
here. While it may seem hard to spend money now, we need to make
smart decisions about spending that will support our future. To me,
anything that supports our business' ability to increase their
income is a win. As for the environment, an EIR is needed before we
can understand if this project can go forward without serious impact
to the environment.
4. What is your position on reuse of the
old wastewater treatment plant and/or developing West Sharp
Park as a potential downtown area? I
am generally in favor of any business development that is
intelligently planned. The planned proposal on Palmetto is
beautiful, tasteful and classy and really designed to be a community
gathering spot. The wastewater treatment plant would be a good
anchor, and could serve as a concert venue or other entertainment
provider which our town could really use. It has a lot of potential
for other revenue generating events, such as festivals, parades, and
performance areas. My main concern is that we do not create a
business center that destroys local fixtures which have thrived in
Pacifica — such as Florey's books, Mazetti's bakery, and Sav More
meats. I believe we can do this by working carefully with the
developer to ensure fresh businesses are brought in that would not
destroy the small businesses in our town.
Business development is
key. A business district is key. Currently, we have business
islands, without much reason for a visitor to Pacifica to visit
other areas in our town. They may come here to go to Mazettis, for
example, but then get back on the freeway and head back out of town.
By providing a centralized location, we increase sustained traffic
which captures more revenue from outside sources, supporting our
business and increasing our tax base. Remember, the more income our
citizens make, the more income Pacifica will have. A business
district will help put Pacificans back to work.
5. What are your thoughts regarding the
council's proposed $6 million in new taxes for 2011-12,
including the proposed increase in TOT hotel tax that will
appear on November's ballot. Will you actively campaign for
or against these tax proposals and why? I
do not support the TOT tax. The plan, in my opinion, is
short-sighted. I believe government should earn the tax dollars it
receives from its citizens. Taxes should be based on a service or
benefit provided to the citizens, at large. Taxes for schools,
utilities, public safety all have a correlation to a service that
can be used by the person being taxed. Pacifica has not earned the
right to tax the hotel owners more. I understand Pacifica has a
budget deficit. All the TOT tax does, besides generate revenue, is
ask the hotel owners to unfairly shoulder the burden of Pacifica's
problems. It offers nothing in return. If Pacifica wants to tax
hotel owners more, they need to provide support to the hotel owners
to increase their business. They need to make Pacifica a more
attractive tourist destination. One of the reasons Pacifica hotel
owners are successful in competing against
San Francisco is because
their rates are lower. With an increased TOT, hotel owners lose
their edge over Pacifica — running them out of business. While the
TOT tax may bring in short-term revenue, in the long-term, it will
cause more problems. TOT will make our hotels less competitive,
which will decrease business. Ultimately, the principle behind TOT
is based on continued levels of business. If Pacifica cannot compete
against San Francisco or SFO hotels, tax revenue will actually drop.
I am less concerned about the other proposed changes. I believe
changes are necessary, unfortunately. Our town has been laid off,
too. We used to receive more federal and state funding which helped
fund programs we are required to have, such as our school system.
But funding has dwindled, if not been removed. We still have the
programs, we still have obligations. We just don't have the money.
My last resort would be to lay anyone off. Knowing what that feels
like, I would have to believe, in good conscience, that it was the
best solution to the problems presented. Asking people to reduce
hours, job share or to consolidate positions where job duties
overlap would be preferable. Keeping the
unemployment rate down in
Pacifica is key to me.
6. How would you solve the city's
longtime budget structural deficit? Pacifica
needs to look hard at the decisions they have made regarding their
budget and correct deficiencies so that we do not continue in the
same pattern of spending without limitations. With less income, we
need to have less out going. First, it seems we've spent an awful
lot of money unnecessarily. There have been several questionable
personnel decisions which should not reoccur. While I do believe a
city has the right to fire and hire at-will, firings should be done
in a fair and reasonable manner. Firings should not be conducted for
political vendettas or personal issues. I won't argue the merits of
these firings as I don't know what the council was told in the
situation, but I will argue that they should have been handled
differently. As an attorney, I understand sometimes tough decisions
have to be made regarding who can continue working for an entity,
but I will say that anytime someone is fired under the allegations
of serious wrongdoing, we'd better have strong evidence to support
that allegation. In my experience, I can tell you that 95% of
lawsuits begin with the mistreatment of one individual. We have
direct evidence of that here; there have been several lawsuits in
the past several years directed at the personnel decisions of our
city leaders. These lawsuits cost our city large sums of money that
could have been avoided with better thought out personnel decisions.
Second, we spend money on things only to delay them or never see
them through to fruition. For example, we spent money to contemplate
the building of a biofuel station which has never been built. We've
spent money on EIRs for projects not even near EIR stage. Perhaps
more careful analysis of an issue is necessary before we start
writing checks. We cannot spend now, think later. Third, we need to
look at areas where we can trim budgets. Renegotiate labor
contracts, look at our outsourced services and determine if they can
be done for cheaper, and, as a last resort, make the painful
decision to eliminate some positions. The more fat we can trim, even
if it is very bare to the bones now, the better. Finally, we need to
look at ways of drawing in revenue to our city. I know this may
impact some of our citizens, but I believe it is time we looked to
collecting nominal parking fees at our beaches and recreation areas.
Parking fees could be used to create a job corps to help beautify
our city and to pay for services we currently outsource, taking
pressure off our budget. I would also look to long term plans to
bring in revenue by developing a business center which would be
attractive to outside funds. Finally, I'd like to see the
development of a spring festival as a counterpart to Fogfest. For
me, I want to know that every dollar I spend has value in return. I
want to know that Pacifica is being benefited, and not just my
goals. Before I vote to spend a dime for Pacifica, I want to know
all the facts behind a project, whether there is public approval,
whether it will generate income for our city, or whether we have a
firm plan in place. We cannot continue to waste money by throwing it
against a wall to see what sticks.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
