"On Monday, January 25, before a packed chamber, on a 3-2 vote, the City Council voted to oppose Rent Control in Pacifica. After 4 hours of public comment and well after midnight, the Council wrapped-up a long debate over Rent Control with a motion from Councilman John Keener and a Second from Mayor Sue Digre to support rent control; voting against rent control were Mayor Pro Tem Mike O'Neill and Councilmembers Karen Ervin and Mary Ann Nihart. A second vote was taken supporting the creation of an advisory committee to help draft a 'Best Practices Advisory' that would provide guidelines for the rental housing market. The idea of an advisory came from a model used in Healdsburg, California. Councilman John Keener was the only member to oppose the Advisory." (press release from Gina Zari, Government Affairs Director, San Mateo County Association of Realtors [SAMCAR])
Click the Comments link below this post to submit your opinion.
"Good find, Jay Bird. A true gem! We need a switch. ..."
Speaking of making a switch, wasn't City Council member Mary Ann Nihart responsible for writing and delivering the ballot argument against City Council term limits? Did that argument ever make it to the ballot?
http://www.pacificariptide.com/pacifica_riptide/2009/08/term-limits-for-pacifica-city-council.html
Posted by: Jay Bird | September 13, 2016 at 07:03 AM
"Is Ervin even running?"
No.
Posted by: Wm. Boyce | September 12, 2016 at 05:00 PM
Good find, Jay Bird. A true gem!
We need a switch. A number of these characters just keep circulating through the council; mayor, mayor pro tem, and council member -- so on and so on. It's a nauseating series of "musical chairs," if you will, without the music.
Posted by: Slightly Cautious | September 12, 2016 at 04:58 PM
Is Ervin even running?
Here's a good shot of Nihart "Digging for Dollars" -- dollars she never found at Fassler:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/09/23/4million-value-homes-living-in-harmony-above-the-pacific-ocean/
Posted by: Jay Bird | September 12, 2016 at 04:03 PM
Nihart is my neighbor. Trust me, she does not have the interest of renters in Pacifica in mind. Heck, if you park in front of her house, you open yourself up to getting your mirror flipped in or some nice key marks on your fenders/doors!
Vote no on Nihart, Ervin, and O'Neill!
Posted by: Slightly Cautious | September 12, 2016 at 02:50 PM
Unfortunately, I can no longer vote these losers out of office.
After years of double-digit rent increases, I was forced to leave Pacifica altogether, after having lived in the same apartment complex for 15 years (Land's End).
Posted by: palindrome | July 18, 2016 at 04:32 PM
In the excellent plan put out by Pacificans for Rent Control, the rent board would be entirely paid for by a $10 per month fee paid by all affected renters. The city and landlords would not pay a cent.
Posted by: ian butler | January 30, 2016 at 09:42 PM
Dear TCDM, the city has found a way to increase our poo tax, which unlike previous poo taxes can be used in the general fund. Our poo tax is a third of our property taxes.
Posted by: todd bray | January 30, 2016 at 01:49 PM
"...-- result in creating another city department with managers and clerks all earning top salaries and pensions for life."
A smokescreen. That's not going to happen. The current bureaucrats don't even have any interest in going after low-hanging fruit like AirBnB rentals for unpaid taxes. No, we have learners and losers in the top positions.
Posted by: thechamberdoesntmatter | January 30, 2016 at 09:29 AM
On the other side, instituting rent control in Pacifica would -- no doubt -- result in creating another city department with managers and clerks all earning top salaries and pensions for life. Where the City and County of San Francisco has the industry and tax $$ to support its rent control board and the required administrative hearings, it doesn't seem to me that Pacifica has the budget for the same unless it further taxes its homeowners.
Posted by: Cin | January 29, 2016 at 02:51 PM
Mary Ann Nihart, Mike O'Neill, and Karen Ervin. These are the same people who brought us the disaster on Fassler. The so-called Harmony @ 1 project is in litigation of some flavor or another and Pacifica is left with a scarred, unsellable, unbuildable hillside.
What is the motivation for supporting losing project after losing project? Just incompetent? Or helping out real estate developer friends or family?
Posted by: Jay Bird | January 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM
Well -- WHAT a surprise. Let's get ONE of these useless shills out in November. Someone please step up.
Posted by: Britt | January 28, 2016 at 01:47 PM
Agreed -- don't let this one disappear off anyone's radar.
Posted by: Dorks | January 28, 2016 at 12:38 PM
I guess we know who O'Neill, Ervin, and Nihart are working for. Certainly not their constituents. Remember this in November.
Posted by: thechamberdoesntmatter | January 28, 2016 at 08:18 AM