« BioBlitz @ Mori Point GGNRA, Pacifica | Main | Pacificapedia: Local Wiki NOT Written by Bots »

July 25, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Subverting the intent of Prop. 218 by using a three-year time frame has Len's and Mary Ann's fingerprints all over it. Since these two have been together on City Council, the public has been cut out of the process. Remember Measure V! Remember the plunder of the Sewer Fund! It is time to end the Council of Two by removing Len in this next election.

I agree with Lionel: Where in hell is the money going? Follow the money and find out. Also, where did other funds' money end up?

Just an addendum to what I said below: This year's increase will be 2.9 percent, 2015-16 will be 2.94 percent, and 2016-17 will be 4.11 percent. The reason that they are voting on three years' increase in one vote is to get around Prop. 218's requirement for noticing property owners each year for an increase. This way, they have to send out only one notice with three years' increases.

If you don't like this sort of thing, an election year is the best time to make your voice (and written protests) heard.

addendum to my comment -

Yo! Set a riptide, are we not civic to new era edit pirates, oy!

Alan, I hear what you're saying. I need to self-censor my comments to ensure we have a wider range of opinion. Purity of the opinion pool is now maintained. We are safe to swim, lifeguard on duty.

I believe that Bob is wrong about the percentage amount of increase.
My reading of the city's docs showed a 2.9 percent increase. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but that's what I think I read.

This is NOT to say that the increase is reasonable, nor that the whole sewage utility fund isn't a black hole into which OUR money is being dumped wholesale. We need explanation and clarity on where the hell this large amount of money is going.

Pacifica pays either the second- or third-highest sewage rates in San Mateo County. Why is that? Comparative charts from other cities' agenda packets show this, and they should be included in Pacifica's council packets for the public to see.

Linty, that's the kind of comment I find is so prevalant on FixPacifica, dismissive of those whose views you occasionally (or often) disagree with, even when they're agreeing with you.

I think Bob hit the nail on the head.

Demanding purity of opinion just makes for a very small echo chamber, and I'd hate to see John's site go that way.

Seriously, is this the same Bob Hutchinson who argues so vociferously in favor of the Council's "sneaky tactics" to stifle public comment on highway widening?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

National Sponsor

Scary Pumpkins

  • Unknown-16
    Ray Villafane

Big Sur

  • P1030837
    Photos by Dave Yuhas

Pacifica Shorebirds

  • 20110819_7165.2
    Photos by Paul Donahue
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2007