« MISSING SWIMMER @ ESPLANADE BEACH |
| 7 FARMWORKERS DEAD IN HMB SHOOTINGS; SUSPECT IN CUSTODY »
Posted at 05:12 PM in Planning & Development | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
First, Pacifica is already overpopulated--unsustainable in terms of dependable, renewable natural resources and over-urbanization that causes massive problems due to hardscaping, armoring the shoreline, problems elsewhere due to the "footprint" of the population where needs not available locally must be obtained, etc. These proposals only increase the unsustainability of the city. The feel-good "affordable housing" push so popular currently is population ignorant.
Second, these projects would further reduce the day-to-day livability of the city with regard to such matters as existing infrastructure inadequacies, traffic, cost-of-living, and amenities provided by parks and recreation. Development in an already overdeveloped place is not progress. It may be a short-term boon for a few developers and builders, but it is regression for the people who live there.
Third, such developments would exacerbate the decades-old conundrum of residential-commercial imbalance in Pacifica, which results in locals having to go outside the city to buy many kinds of ordinary goods, and inadequate tax income for local government to provide decent services for its citizens. Having to sell off government property to compensate for revenue shortfalls is a desperate, one-time effort that will only make the situation worse in the long run.
The only enduring hope for the future of people in any locality and for all localities combined is a sustainable steady-state economy. It's a slim one, but worth keeping in mind when local, on-the-ground policies and proposals are up for consideration. Virtually all the "best" attempts at mitigations and environmental compensation one sees are only ways of getting worse a bit more slowly. The dim-witted insistence that material growth in a place is necessary is essentially a con game played on most of us whenever it is tried. In that light, these misuses of land in Pacifica depend on the gullibility of Pacificans willing to go along with them.
Carl May |
February 16, 2023 at 04:46 PM
Actually, this is better than sliding hillsides and vanity projects. The owners of Linda Mar Shopping Center would never allow a trailer park across the street. An apartment complex like the ones on El Camino in South San Francisco near the BART station, and Trader Joe's, would work. That's how you will get to the number of units required. It won't be San Pedro Mountain.
February 15, 2023 at 10:49 AM
Selling the Police Station and Senior Center and leasing back to stay out of Bankruptcy is a great Fiscal Model.
Doing nothing, like you people like, has done the city so much good.
Big Banker |
February 15, 2023 at 10:28 AM
"... mobile home park in SamTrans' park-and-ride lot..."
Stay classy, Pacifica!
Jay Bird |
February 14, 2023 at 04:59 PM
Don't ya love how these community-wrecking, overpopulation-extending, hardscaping, infrastructure-overwhelming, money-grubbing developers' misadventures are described as "opportunities"?
Carl May |
January 23, 2023 at 12:45 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
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.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address