HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/18/2017 Item 2, Pinard
Gardner, Erica
From: Peg Pinard \[
To: Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>
Cc: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Your response on the Appeal Fees
My Response: to Council Member Aaron Gomez regarding his response to my input on Appeal Fees.
Aaron,
As you are aware, the English language does not distinguish between the singular ‘you' and the
collective ‘you’ as other languages do. “You" are the city, so is staff…ergo the collective “you”.
Since you took the time to respond, which I appreciate, I have to question your comment that: ”What
is an "insult" to some residents has been asked for by other residents.” Without quantifying “some”
and “other” this comment has little meaning.
For example, the city’s L.U.C.E. Survey results from thousands of city residents and business owners
found that, overwhelmingly, residents did not want more bars. That’s a quantifiable number from an
objective source! The city has an extremely disproportionately high number of bars per population
downtown and yet, the city still continues to approve more. There is no inherent right to more
bars.
Surely, those taxpaying residents, as per the survey, do not feel that they should have to
pay for the increased police presence downtown attributable to the excessive numbers of
alcohol outlets. Certainly, real estate developers may wish to raise the cost of citizen appeals as
they may profit more from less public involvement.
Your further comment to me that: “... Other residents do not feel "their taxes" should be used to pay
for appeals.” This misses the point. H aving the right of appeal is a fundamental right of
our system of government. The ability to appeal a government decision is part of our
democratic system. It’s something basic that one learns in civics…decisions by
government agencies are subject to appeal, first usually within the agency itself, then
through the courts, all the way to the Supreme Court.
You concluded by saying that: “Some people feel that appeals fees should be higher…” Again, what is
wrong with this reasoning, of course, is that you can always find "some” unsubstantiated number to
validate even the most absurd proposition.
In the real world, regular working families already find it difficult to come up with the
hundreds of dollars required now to exercise their right of appeal. The citizens of San Luis
Obispo did not elect any city council member to make their right of appeal more difficult.
1
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
On Apr 17, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org> wrote:
Hello Peg,
Thank you for your email. It appears to me that there is a misunderstanding based on how I
read your email. You said that, "It is especially egregious to have just given away tax payer
monies as a spontaneous ‘bonus’ to yourselves..." Where exactly did you get that idea
from? We have not issued a pay "bonus" for ourselves.
Beyond that as a former Mayor you understand the reality that not all residents, and
therefore taxpayers, do not share the same opinions on the subjects that we deal with.
What is an "insult" to some residents has been asked for by other residents. Your email
seems to minimize the reality that we are all taxpaying residents with different needs.
Other residents do not feel "their taxes" should be used to pay for appeals. I am not
arguing one perspective is right or wrong, but they are both perspectives that residents
have. Some people feel that appeals fees should be higher some feel they should be
lower. Our job is to decide what is a reasonable compromise for ALL parties involved. I
will continue to seek a middle ground for these divisive subjects.
Thanks again Peg.
Sincerely,
Aaron Gomez
Council Member
<OutlookEmoji-1487622533572_image002.jpg.jpg>
Office of the City Council
E agomez@slocity.org
T (805) 540-9053
slocity.org
From: Peg Pinard <
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 4:05:41 PM
To: Harmon, Heidi; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron; Pease, Andy
Cc: E-mail Council Website
Subject: Appeal Fees
City Council
2
re: Appeal Fees
I think you are forgetting that residents already pay taxes for the operation of their city
government. So, the real question should be “Do the fees encourage or discourage
resident involvement?” The current fees are a write-off for the developers and most
often a hardship for residents. It’s already unrealistic to think that families have an extra
$300 sitting around that they can just throw at frivolous appeals. Raise the rates and
you are effectively cutting residents out of the democratic process as surely as the states
that closed polling places to make it even harder, if not impossible for people to vote!
It is especially egregious to have just given away tax payer monies as a
spontaneous ‘bonus’ to yourselves and then go back to the very same taxpayers and tell
them that the city “doesn't have enough" and that residents will have to pay more for a
current city function!. It’s an insult to residents to raise the appeal fees.
Our local democracy includes the right to file an appeal to the council - but then having
the council charge such an additional hefty ‘recovery’ fee absolutely goes against
encouraging residents to care about where they live. You’re already creating an "Isla
Vista-north" and have darn few owner-occupied family housing left. Keep increasing
this trend of separating out functions of local government and charging residents an
additional fee for each function (that they already pay for through their taxes) and you
will soon have no one left who will even care enough to file an appeal.
Peg PInard
former SLO Mayor
former SLO County Board of Supervisors Chairperson
3