If you haven't had time to watch the current parade of talent running for City Council, I offer up this quick-pick review to help you tune in. We are charged with picking two out of the five candidates running for council: Cal Hinton, Pete DeJarnatt, Mary Anne Nihart, Tod Schlesinger, and Jeff Simons. You might be inclined to keep things the way they are and vote for incumbents DeJarnatt and Hinton, or you might want to throw caution to the wind and vote for Schlesinger and Simons. But if you are thinking of change that is beneficial to Pacifica, change that will improve our city without ruining its small-town character, that vote would be for DeJarnatt and Nihart.
DeJarnatt has proven again and again that he can develop a long-held position over time. As new information on an issue comes to light, he can adapt his understanding of it and adjust his opinion to include it—a rare talent in a politician, one worth keeping. For instance, Pete's understanding of the Highway 1 issue and his developing position on it, from supporting lanes to rethinking the problem logically to find a way to improve circulation flow—the real issue—shows he's paying attention and understands the complexities of issues facing us all as a community.
Nihart is standing up for progress in Pacifica, not the kind of unreasonable pro-development, pro-growth ramblings of Hinton, Schlesinger, and Simons, but real attainable progress that comes from the bottom up by way of citizen committees and organizations. Like DeJarnatt, Nihart is a learner, an involved one at that.
Finally, we have a chance to blow apart the long-standing Old Boy Network of the Pacifica School District Board of Trustees, and elect two new faces, Cynthia Kaufman and Eileen Manning-Villar, who bring openness and fresh ideas to the PSD arena. This is the first election for the school board in 10 years. Elections in the past have been avoided by midterm appointments of ideologically similar candidates by the sitting PSD board members. Incumbent Laurie Frater is one such appointment. This year we have a choice. Cynthia and Eileen are the way of the future and a positive choice for the school board.
TODD MCCUNE BRAY
The way these politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth makes me ill. How can DeJarnatt babble on about this huge reserve, and at the same time hire consultants to come in and figure out how to raise taxes? Does he think we're stupid?!?
In this economy, the last thing I need is my local government trying to saddle me with more taxes YET AGAIN.
Posted by: Scotty | October 24, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Dear Mike, you said...
"This Council has seriously damaged Pacifica's economy and our chances for recovery through inept management and narrow special interest policies which have deeply divided our community by disenfranchising anyone who doesn't see it their way. We need some independent thinking in the leadership of our town. The last thing we need right now is another "yes" vote."
I'd like a few direct examples of this council or any council actively and determinedly damaging a local economy. Every council member I've talked to since I started paying attention in 2002 has agonized about the lack of a commercial/retail tax base here.
So please show me the examples of premeditated economy ruining you are accusing this council of. I ask as a neighbor not an antagonist.
Posted by: todd bray | October 23, 2008 at 06:56 PM
"Our Nation is boldly voting to throw out a very incompetent and special interest government while many Pacificans meekly stick their heads in the sand and vote for more of the same."
This is more and more about how everything you guys don't like about the last several years is the fault of the council and whatever you can't find a way to characterize in a bad light would have happened anyway. It sounds as though, if your guys were in, Pacifica would be the only small town in the state unaffected by the Feds and the state robbing small towns and school districts of much needed tax revenue.
The sewer plant wasn't purchased by this council and when it was purchased it wasn't because some council member's brother in law was selling them. They were acting on the best expert advice they could find and now we see in hindsight the many problems the plant has had. As a plumbing contractor I offer a great deal of expert advice and make purchases of complex equipment. I am mostly correct but I am at the mercy of a number of factors not the least of which being inflated claims and changes to the products by the corporations that manufacture them. No city council consists exclusively of sewer plant experts so they needed to hire consultants and make their best guess based on that advice. There still may be refinements and adjustments that might solve those problems without buying a new sewer plant.
As for not letting every carpetbagger build whatever they care to, that was the citizenry, not the council. If Prop L had won it would be standing vacant like Conamara or whatever it is called and I doubt very much that Mr. Peebles would have spent his money on any promises that weren't in writing on legal documents. There has been quite a bit of both residential and commercial building in this tiny town, when you consider the nature of the place, and I trust this council (with the addition of Mary Ann Nihart) to continue with a policy of sensible growth.
Posted by: Dan Underhill | October 23, 2008 at 03:09 PM
S.C.
Ms. Nihart and deJarnatt have both touted the $7.2 million reserve on several occasions during endorsement committee interviews. Why don't you ask them yourself? Fortunately for you, your waiting till next week to verify this claim will likely have no adverse effect on the election outcome.
I have no personal axe to grind with Nihart. My concern is her nearly unanimous support of this Council. Her platform is; keep up the good work and "let's all just get along". This Council has seriously damaged Pacifica's economy and our chances for recovery through inept management and narrow special interest policies which have deeply divided our community by disenfranchising anyone who doesn't see it their way. We need some independant thinking in the leadership of our town. The last thing we need right now is another "yes" vote.
Our Nation is boldly voting to throw out a very incompetent and special interest government while many Pacificans meekly stick their heads in the sand and vote for more of the same.
Posted by: mike bell | October 23, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Mr. Bell
Sorry I have not had a chance to call the City Manager, but will try next week. I personally have found them responsive so I can not imagine anything otherwise here.
Meanwhile, I have been trying to find where Mrs. Nihart said anything about a reserve and there is nothing like that anywhere. Not said in the candidate forum - I reviewed the tape - not said in other forums that I attended or heard about and not said in any of her writings. The only place is a vague reference in the Pacifica Tribune which is actually misrepresenting what she said in the candidate forum. So, I guess my question to you is: Why do you keep saying that she said this repeatedly? There is no evidence that she made this claim at all. Do you not like her? or do you just take a slight reference,an inaccurate one at that, in the Tribune and make it say what you want it to say and then keep saying it over and over as if it is fact so that you can feel it is correct? Sorry,just curious.
Posted by: S.C. Stone | October 22, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Mike,
I realize that you know that allegedly the finance director and the human resources director's positions were rolled into a new and miraculous combined position--but the truth is we don't have a finance director.
I can't emphasize that enough, I apologize but that's how important I believe it to be.
As to how well the council works together: They work all too well together. Too much agreement, not enough questioning, too much deference to staff's opinion and an unquestioning acceptance of same.
But to the challengers: I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that, for example, city employees' pension costs will at least be critically examined and a conclusion reached as to the future implications of these promises we may not be able to keep to the employees.
It isn't in anyone's interest to sweep this under the carpet: Should the city fail, i.e., go bankrupt, the state would come in, and under the law, rewrite the pension agreements for city employees. It wouldn't be favorable to them.
Tough questions that no one is answering.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | October 21, 2008 at 10:04 PM
Dear S.C.
I was wondering if you had any success contacting our Finance Director to get a clear explanation, in layman's terms, of the alleged $7.2 million reserve. This is a pivotal but unsubstantiated claim being made by DeJarnatt and Nihart about the current and future economic condition of Pacifica. If just one "friend of the Council" would be willing to muster up enough intellectual curiosity to displace the pervasive "go along to get along" fog that surrounds this issue, everyone would benefit. As I stated before, repeated requests for a verification and explanation of this reserve have been ignored.
The Finance Directors e-mail address is: ritzmaa@ci.pacifica.ca.us
Her phone number is: (650)738-7402
If that doesn't work the City Manager's e mail addres is: rhodess@ci.pacifica.ca.us
His phone number is : (650) 738-7401
Thank you and GOOD LUCK!
Posted by: mike bell | October 21, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Scotty, I am asking a question and not trying to "lead the witness" any particular way. I am simply trying to make up my mind on how to vote. I appreciate your question, though, and this opportunity to clarify my question -- and perhaps add a few more.
It occurs to me that when you insert into any group new people who already have a bad relationship each other, it may be a set-up for failure. It is not the only factor I consider in casting my vote, but it is one factor.
I wonder: how effective can this group be when there is already so much division between its members? Clearly, they will need to start mending the rift between them before getting to the business of moving our City forward. All sides will need to want to do this and it will take time. All will need to toss aside the urge to villify one another. All will need to stop ascribing to the other side evil intentions for their positions. Isn't that what we expect of all our representatives?
So again I ask -- is that a reasonable expectation? Will all parties work with each other in a productive way for the good of our City? Expanding the group further to its full membership, will the Pacificans For Progress, Pacifica Businesses for Responsible Government and Pacificans for Sustainable Development groups all agree to step back and allow the new council to work through the pre-existing animosity? Are the candidates and sitting council ready to put aside their differences in order to work productively on bahalf of Pacificans? And how will we know this has occured?
These are all open questions and I look forward to reading the opinions that will be forthcoming.
For the record, I like a lot of the ideas I'm hearing from all of the new candidates. What I don't like is the counter-productive and petty bickering I have seen both here and in council meetings between the candidates and the sitting council. I don't see a good outcome arising from electing someone who may have good ideas but zero skill in "politicking" those ideas to a good end.
Posted by: Evan | October 21, 2008 at 09:39 AM
I'm not sure about Mr. Simons but how would anybody of any political stripe actually work with Mr. Schlesinger on anything?
Posted by: Dan Underhill | October 21, 2008 at 07:59 AM
Evan, are you saying that present council members would not be willing to work with people who disagree with them? Perhaps sitting council members who are unwilling to work with others or who openly campaign against their council brethren should just resign if they are so petulant that they can only work with "rubber stampers".
Posted by: Scotty | October 20, 2008 at 11:54 PM
After watching the debate here and on our local cable channel, I am left with a question that does not seem to have a good answer: will the candidates who have adversarial/oppositional relationships with the existing council have the ability to persuade the existing council? It seems like Mr. Simons and Mr. Schlesinger have both had adversarial relationships with the council. Granted, this in itself is not a problem -- unless your goal is to get elected and make change happen. Has anyone else considered this? If you're voting for Simons or Schlesinger, does it not bother you that your candidate won't be able to achieve anything because they've already established a bad relationship with the sitting council?
Posted by: Evan | October 20, 2008 at 02:28 PM
S.C. - I wasn't criticizing the current city council for the sewage treatment plant. I was responding to Todd's assertion that since Jeff wasn't around when the sewage treatment plant was approved, he didn't have a right to say anything about it. My point was that I was around at the time the plant was being debated and built, and while I don't remember the discussion about how it's exact location was decided, I do remember the silly promises that were made to rally support for it.
Regarding Mary Ann, I was making the assumption, which could easily be wrong, that she was one of the plant advocates making those absurd promises about how the plant would make money for the city.
I actually have a lot of respect for Mary Ann's efforts on behalf of schools and the city, but I worry that she thinks the same way as Sue, Jim, Pete and Julie, and that she's so concerned with getting along that she won't stand up to them if she disagrees with them.
Posted by: Steve Sinai | October 19, 2008 at 05:54 PM
Mr. Sinai - With considerable investigation I have discovered, Mrs. Nihart supported building a new plant with tertiary treatment since the old one was out of compliance more days than not, plus there were only two of those plants left in the country and the other one didn't work either. At the time there were many sites reviewed and the EIR supported moving it to the back of Fairway Park where all of that smell would have blown into the hillside. Plus, others told me that she worked hard for that site, but that neighbors and friends of then council members Vi Gotelli and Barbara Carr did not want it in that location. Lengthy debates went on for sometime with no progress. Finally, the community at the time with lots and lots of individual supporters got the council to agree to the site at the quarry as an alternative. How is that the fault of this council? Everyone knew it was second choice and they voted it in with lots of support. Even with problems, it is better than the old plant - sewers smell, everyone knows that - I understand we can blame the 3 people in Fairway Park and their friends on the council at the time for this plant location, not the current council
Posted by: S.C. Stone | October 19, 2008 at 03:12 PM
I'm sure everyone can agree that debt hasn't caused any problems lately. So we ignore these pension obligations at out peril--they may destroy us as a community.
I think city and special district workers should receive decent pensions. And we should be able to afford to sustain and pay such pensions. Is that the case now?
I don't think that question has been asked, or even explored.
Steve, I don't have an answer to your question as to what can save the city's finances, since state and federal funding has been cut off. This council has approved every project that's come before it and it doesn't help. There are projects approved that haven't even been started and where will the buyers come from? Residental development is a loser and we will never be a commercial center, in my opinion.
Creative thinking (always in short supply) is necessary to come up with an alternative.
"With regard to infrastructure, I see that Jeff, Cynthia et al. have chosen to highlight our superb new sewer plant, which in other contexts they consider to be a horrific mistake."
I think this is an unfortunate denial of the odiferous reality: I drive past the thing and it stinks.
Maybe that's a reminder of the human condition, (and effluent there generated) but it does not work well; it has been a continuous problem since day one.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | October 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Jeff,
1) Call me Matt, please.
2) Regarding pensions--I don't have to answer how I would fulfill the city's pension obligations. I'm not running for City Council.
Every pension fund in California, public and private, is underfunded now that the market is in the toilet. I don't really see how that's the City Council's fault, and I think we're probably way better off than most cities in California--but I want to hear how you would fix it if elected. You want my vote? Offer a solution.
3) Regarding the highway--if we build a lot of housing in the quarry, and traffic south of Reina del Mar becomes a complete disaster, how will you defend your performance in four years? "I added twenty minutes a day to your commute, but I hired three more firefighters"?
I was at the SMCTA meeting a couple of months ago. Those people couldn't find Pacifica on Google Maps. They came to *our* Council chambers and talked about Caltrain, ferries, and Highway 101 for an hour before somebody interrupted them and asked them if they could explain why anyone in Pacifica would give a fig.
I'm open to development in the quarry (as I remind people, I voted for measure L). And I honestly think most Pacificans (like the candidates) are. But I think we need a candidate who we believe will take our needs into account, not just the needs of the city government for more tax revenue.
I'm sure you don't mean it to sound this way, but sometimes it sounds like you're saying "we have these obligations, and the only way to meet them is to develop a lot more, even if it ruins your quality of life." So maybe you could talk a little about how you're going to balance those two needs?
Posted by: Matthew Levie | October 18, 2008 at 09:51 PM
Mister Levie,
in regards to the Calera Creek WWTF, your issue seemed to be one of load on the infrastructure as a reason not to develop. I was merely illustrating that load on the plant is not an issue. In no way was it an endorsement that our plant was "superb", just that the argument that we cannot add more load to the infrastructure is patently false.
You seem to have missed my point about SAMTRANS as well. They will not run more buses to Pacifica unless we add the infrastructure to support more bus routes, which includes housing.
The solution to the HWY 1 issue is completely dependent on our ability to assume leadership in designating projects and providing matching funds. That was according to the SMCTA.
The website you cited did not include the $17 million of unpaid pension obligations. Again, you avoid answering the question of what we are going to do to fulfill this debt obligation over the next 20 years while maintaining the level of city services the citizens of Pacifica deserve.
It IS understandable that, in the current economic climate, people would be freaked out about Pacifica's debt. On that point, we agree.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | October 18, 2008 at 02:25 PM
It's understandable that, in the current economic climate, people would be freaked out about Pacifica's debt. But no municipality can be debt-free, because capital improvements can't be paid for with operating funds. Buying a house that costs more than one year's salary isn't a financial disaster.
According to this document, current debt is equal to $62 million:
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2905
No doubt somebody will claim, despite state audits, that this is some kind of horrible accounting sham. Municipalities have a "debt limit" equal to 3.75% of assessed valuation, which in our case, according to this document, amounts to almost $150 million. No doubt that's gone down a bit, but not by a third. So even if the debt was $100 million, which it's not, that's hardly a disaster.
With regard to infrastructure, I see that Jeff, Cynthia et al. have chosen to highlight our superb new sewer plant, which in other contexts they consider to be a horrific mistake.
But what about the highway? If SamTrans isn't going to run any more buses our way, then adding housing south of Vallemar is asking for a traffic disaster.
I'm open to development in the quarry, but there needs to be a real plan to accomodate the traffic, and that plan needs to include vastly improved transit.
Posted by: Matthew Levie | October 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Mr. Bray, I think it is you that needs to take a primer in Pacifica history and the promises touted to smooth the way for the poop factory. Not only were we told that the sludge would be a revenue source, we were also assured that the owwtp would be sold to a developer and turned into a hotel, retail, conference center. Well, ten years later, no sludge bling, a big hole on Palmetto, and a fragrance wafting over the central part of Pacifica that smells curiously like, uhhhhhhhhh, poop. Job well done council.
Posted by: Lance Fernork | October 18, 2008 at 08:40 AM
Lionel,
I agree with your concern about the city's financial position, but I'm genuinely wondering how you think the city can get out of its jam. (Actually, I'm interested in anyone's opinion on this matter.) From your letters and postings, I get the impression that you don't want much new business or residential construction in town, and it seems like that limits new sources of revenue. People are getting pretty tired of property tax increases, and I can't see the county or state helping to pick up the tab.
From what I can tell, the City Council is ignoring the issue for now, and has decided to let future Councils deal with the problem. Ultimately, I think that many of the former city employees who expect pensions from the city simply won't get what they were promised.
Posted by: Steve Sinai | October 18, 2008 at 05:42 AM
"Municipal finances are complicated and, if you followed Mary Ann's exchange with Kathy Meeh in the letters column of the Trib back in June about the myth of Pacifica's "$100 million debt," you will see that Mary Ann understands the city's budget better than anyone--which to me is a major reason to elect her."
Actually Ms. Nihart got it wrong if you include the pension obligation bonds that are being processed as you read this.
The city is indebted for this because they don't have the money to fund the pension obligations, largely health benefits, that will be added onto the long term debt.
One of my concerns is the lack of curiosity on the part of council members--how did we get into this situation? In fact,there are another 14 months of unfunded pension obligations as of now. Where will that money come from?
"Mr. Bell, please give the finance director a call, she will happily walk you thorough all of the financials."
We have no finance director. Ms. Ritzma, with all due respect, is a human resources professional, not a finance person. This was a major staffing change in 2007;the removal of the finance director position.
And Mr. Hinton deserves to be retired, his defense of Coastside Scavenger after it was
shown that they were charging the highest rates in San Mateo County was indefensible. Who's he really working for?
Posted by: Lionel Emde | October 17, 2008 at 11:29 PM
"we were told could be sold at a profit when the plant was commissioned."
Again candidate Simons makes false statements. He didn't live here when the treatment plant was approved or built so the assertion of the word 'we" is flagrantly mis-used once again, but who knows maybe Foghorn is channeling for someone long gone.
******
I was here when it was built. Not only was Pacifica supposed to make money from the sludge, WE were also told that the plant would practically become a tourist destination. People from all over the world would flock to Pacifica, and spend money while studying and admiring our "world-class" sewage treatment plant. That's as well thought out as basing economic development on hiking trails, in the hope that hikers buy sandwiches in town.
Maybe one day Pacifica's City Council can take a step up in sophistication, and base it's economic plan on lemonade stands.
I hadn't realized that Mary Ann Nihart had anything to do with the Sewage Treatment Plant until she mentioned it at the Pacifica Democrats Candidate Forum. She definitely lost points with me because of that. (Although if she was to replace DeJarnatt on the City Council, instead of serving along with him, I'd consider it an improvement. At least she makes an effort.)
Posted by: Steve Sinai | October 17, 2008 at 07:32 PM
OK, you're wrong, I'm right, I'm right and you're wrong. As long as you agree with me then you are right, right? Obvious. What's not obvious is the source of this mysterious $7.2 million in reserves. Maybe someone should simply call the city manager and just ask the question, "do we have $7.2 million in reserves". I'm sure he'll answer you truthfully. Why argue about a number that must have been calculated and posted somewhere because, if we are to believe Pete and Mary Ann, someone "officially" must have told them both that reserves are $7.2 million. Simple solution.
Posted by: Lance | October 17, 2008 at 03:14 PM
"we were told could be sold at a profit when the plant was commissioned."
Again candidate Simons makes false statements. He didn't live here when the treatment plant was approved or built so the assertion of the word 'we" is flagrantly mis-used once again, but who knows maybe Foghorn is channeling for someone long gone.
Harassing the community through it's elected representatives might simply be his way of getting attention. His running mate candidate Schlesinger seems equally needy if not more so.
Once again a simple primer for this election is as stated above,
"You might be inclined to keep things the way they are and vote for incumbents DeJarnatt and Hinton, or you might want to throw caution to the wind and vote for Schlesinger and Simons. But if you are thinking of change that is beneficial to Pacifica, change that will improve our city without ruining its small-town character, that vote would be for DeJarnatt and Nihart."
Posted by: todd bray | October 17, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Cynthia, Matt . . .
I believe the rated capacity of the Calera Creek Waste Water Treatment Facility is 20 MGD (20 million gallons per day) with all Sequence Batch Reactors online. Average daily flowrates are around 7MGD. In fact, we were making money from allowing Daly City to transport their waste to us (not sure if we still do that), although we currently spend about $120,000 per year removing sludge, which we were told could be sold at a profit when the plant was commissioned.
While I fundamentally understand the issue on the cost of infrastructure versus tax benefits of developments (not saying I agree with the numbers or the argument, but I understand it), the property in question is a redevelopment zone and is designated to return far more in tax benefits than other property, especially from property taxes on residential units. In addition, SAMTRANS has stated that Pacifica can not currently support additional bus routes, so it seems the principles of smart growth in the Quarry would dictate a mixed use development with a walkable community.
As far as I have heard, every candidate for City Council has stated they support mixed use development in the Quarry, so I'm not sure I understand Mister Levie's comments.
Posted by: Jeffrey Simons | October 17, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Mr. Levie:
Our infrastructure can handle the growth, the WWTP was built to handle much more than we produce now. I can't remember the exact gallons per day, but even if we built out the Quarry according to what was proposed under Measure L, we'd not even be close to overwhelming the system.
We need to develop our economic base to bring our basic City Services (police and fire) to where they should be. We have sold off our excess school property. We keep cutting to save funds to balance the budget. What more are we able to cut? What more do we need to give up?
Posted by: Cynthia Montanez | October 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM