NO on L - Measure L

Thank you, Pacifica!

larry — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:31:07 -0700

Thank you, Pacifica!

Special thanks to all the dedicated volunteers (like the one pictured above) who worked so hard on this campaign!

Mayor Sue Digre says NO on L

ken — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:24:28 -0700

Mayor Sue Digre has taken a courageous stand and is proudly saying "NO on L". She has issued the following statement:

No on Measure L- I have taken a long hard look with lots of questions and find the measure lacking. It appears to be more of a blank check than not.
read more

Pacifica deserves better

ken — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 09:56:17 -0700

As a homeowner who has been actively involved in this community for 25 years (3-time PB&R Commission Chair, Pacificans Care, Family Fun Fest and Fog Fest Board member, Alternative Class Parent, etc.), I too want a quality project in the Quarry. I was willing to keep an open mind on Measure L but the negatives kept piling up. My vote is based upon integrity, due diligence, trust, fair play, and civility. Would I buy a used car from this company without looking under the hood? No. Do past negative actions and tactics speak louder than words and promises when evaluating future choices? Yes. In addition to the ballot arguments, here are 13 things that have triggered my No vote:
read more

Seven reasons to vote NO on L

ken — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:25:24 -0700

With November 7th drawing near, now's the time to summarize why Measure L is bad for Pacifica.

Measure L exists only to allow 355 housing units in the Quarry. It's not a straw poll or a survey. It's a permanent change to allow 355 housing units in a C-3 commercial zone.
More houses mean more cars. Measure L's high-density housing "vision" would merge hundreds more commuters directly in between the two worst-rated intersections on Highway 1 in Pacifica. Miami high-rise developer R. Donahue Peebles has claimed he'll build multi-million-dollar, 4,500-square-foot houses there. The residents of those "Tract Villas" will almost certainly own and drive multiple cars, and commute to big-city jobs to pay their mortgages.
Peebles has repeatedly threatened us with a mushroom cloud of "big-box" retail if we don't give him his 355 housing units. But that "choice" ignores the vast middle ground between those extremes. Peebles deliberately chose an "all-or-nothing" approach, instead of negotiating a development agreement first.
Measure L asks Pacificans to forfeit our right to vote on the specifics. Why authorize 355 housing units and a dramatic change to the character of Pacifica, without assuring anything in exchange? Measure L puts the cart before the horse. It would give away those lucrative houses before negotiation even begins. That's not a negotiation, it's a fold.
Attempting to get Pacificans to fold is big money politics, straight from Miami and D.C. The "yes on L" campaign has spent $1,310,384 so far to try to push Measure L past Pacifica voters. It's an extravagant sum for an election in a quiet coastal town.
Peebles has claimed that Measure L will solve all our problems and fulfill nearly every wish. We've been told that it'll give us a sports complex, a library, a movie theater, a new City Hall, an aquatic center, affordable housing, a performing arts center, loans to the City, and more. Those would have to be built, maintained, and staffed with taxpayer's money, and it's unclear where exactly that's going to come from. Without a development agreement, the promises are meaningless anyway.
Finally, there is no "town center" in Measure L. The words don't even appear in the ballot language. There's no specific number of houses other than 355. There's no specific amount of commercial. There's no specific amount of space for any public buildings, parks, or amenities. It's just not there.

Measure L is an attempted end-run around the public process. It has been sold through:

Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee says NO on L

ken — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:52:32 -0700

Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee
Statement on Measure L

"I oppose Measure L as it asks Pacificans to approve a project without the benefit of a development agreement and an environmental impact report. Public policy cannot be made by signing a contract without knowing the terms," said Assembly Speaker pro Tem Leland Yee.
read more

Pacificans for Sustainable Development says NO to Measure L

ken — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:10:24 -0700

After much thought and analysis, including meetings and many conversations with Quarry owner/developer R. Donahue Peebles, Pacificans for Sustainable Development (PSD) steering committee has decided to oppose Measure L.
read more

Pacifica's "Miami Beach" covered in Bay Guardian

ken — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:43:13 -0700

This week's San Francisco Bay Guardian includes an article by G.W. Schulz about Measure L. The very thorough, well-researched report contains too much good information to excerpt here; by all means, read the whole thing.

Arguments against Measure L

ken — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:33:33 -0700

Argument Against Measure L

Don't be fooled! You are not voting on a "new urbanism" town center. The plan dangled before Pacificans is not on the ballot. The only reason for Measure L is to allow 355 housing units.

NO on L

ken — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:29:09 -0700

Pacifica Today & Tomorrow says "NO" to Measure L, which would authorize 355 houses in the Quarry.

All of the developer's other promises are empty; they're either not in Measure L at all, or they are required anyway by regulatory agencies. There is no project, there is no plan, there is no solution for the traffic nightmare that 355 additional houses would create.

Putting the cart before the horse

larry — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:28:54 -0700

The "blank check" Measure L on the November ballot is a wonderful example of putting the cart before the horse.

Voting on a housing initiative before there is a concrete plan makes perfect sense from Mr. Peebles' point of view. He doesn't want to spend 2 years doing the hard work of preparing a detailed project plan, getting it approved by the City, and convincing Pacificans it was good for the City, only to have the voters turn it down.