Hill’s reelection, what were the voters thinking?

November 5, 2017

Supervisor Adam Hill, photo by Daniel Blackburn

OPINION by T. KEITH GURNEE

Next Tuesday, Nov. 7, marks the one-year anniversary of a decision some San Luis Obispo County voters have come to lament.

No, it wasn’t the election of President Donald Trump, although many seem to regret that fact. Rather It was the decision by San Luis Obispo County District 3 voters to reelect Supervisor Adam Hill to another undeserved term of office.

Having endured the first year of his latest term, Hill’s year has been one of constant tantrums, misogynistic rants, misplaced blames, and his deliberate alienation of the board majority. As a result, Hill has relegated himself a political eunuch and an ineffective representative of his constituents.

Before Hill’s reelection, we were warned this would happen. His opponent, former San Luis Obispo City Councilman Dan Carpenter, predicted it and did his best to get the word out. But Hill’s developer-funded war chest and his pay-to-play schemes carried the day. And now the voters of District 3 have three more years to endure his ineffectiveness.

And then there are the positions he’s taken over this past year:

  • He tried to get the board to dramatically increase the inclusionary housing fees that would’ve driven housing costs higher in the middle of a housing crisis and he’s still trying!
  • He criticized Supervisor Lynn Compton for the $1.5 million budget appropriation for South County Parks, but only after he and Bruce Gibson had plundered nearly $10 million in development impact fees generated in Compton’s district for projects in their own districts.
  • He continues to rant about appropriating funds to the Flood Control District to support groundwater basin management plans while favoring state intervention to manage our groundwater resources and the increased regulations and challenges that would accompany it.
  • Then Hill blamed the board majority for the $8 million budgetary error, politicizing the issue rather than what he should have done: request an investigation into why it happened and how it happened.
  • While the majority wanted to bring in an interim CAO from outside Hill and Gibson’s political circle, Hill and Gibson steadfastly refused such a notion and insisted on the appointment of Assistant County Administrator Guy Savage. And under whose watch did that error occur? Guy Savage, Hill and Gibson’s hand-picked choice.

Hill, having erected a wall between himself and the majority, has taken himself out of the running for the position he covets most: chairman of the Board of Supervisors. He has made that his will “impossible dream” all by himself.

Now he’s spending more of his time trying to get someone elected in Compton’s district than representing his own.

And the first year of this term draws to a close, Hill’s antics and behavior during what should be his last term has been nothing more than shameful. His constituents and those who voted for him should be furious at his ineffectiveness and asking themselves “What was I thinking?

The answer: they weren’t thinking!







Loading...

16 Comments

  1. George Bailey says:

    I think we all know that Adam Hill is a loser.

    (33) 43 Total Votes - 38 up - 5 down
  2. mazin says:

    rukidding … the folks that re-elected Hill were in Grover Beach/AG/Pismo area due the Pismo preserve. Carpenter carried SLO city.
    OK … Hill by temperament should not be in office. Got it! But this County is falling into the Santa Barbara County trap progrowth/development versus antigrowth/NIMBY. Do we REALLY want to go this way? How about a third way? Growth in the greater public interest. Another words, maybe we, the public, get a piece of the development pie with BETTER roads, schools, parks/open space, affordable adequate water/sewer. Maybe Lynn is too one side of the equation maybe Jimmy Pauling is THAT third way.

    (-1) 25 Total Votes - 12 up - 13 down
    • rukidding says:

      You have to remember that out of all of the funds that are collected that go into the General Fund approximately 75% of that money goes towards employees. As funds are increased so are salaries, benefits etc. for these employees. The end result is that as we are forced to pay more nothing better will be returned to the taxpayers as costs go up but revenue for these costs is depleted for salaries. This is a problem for the entire state of California. Until it is addressed and corrected California will just keep going backwards.

      (22) 28 Total Votes - 25 up - 3 down
      • Jorge Estrada says:

        Yes and we all know those who benefited from California Pensions and have moved out of state because they now dislike California. Certainly these affordable to retire in states do not pay the pensions that were earned in California. My East coast brother thinks that the new boarder wall should also keep California out.

        (14) 20 Total Votes - 17 up - 3 down
      • mazin says:

        “CalPERS, which manages about $323 billion in assets, now has about 68 percent of the funds it would need if it had to pay all of the benefits it owes to retirees and public workers.” Soooooo why not a windfall pension tax??? Like for $10,000 per month or more????

        (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
      • mazin says:

        Soooo why not merge Five Cities area into one entity with ONE management to fund????

        (5) 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 down
  3. c.d.cox says:

    Look at his Mug.what do you see? Bully the Thug.

    (19) 25 Total Votes - 22 up - 3 down
  4. Jorge Estrada says:

    I can’t say much about someone else’s research but I do love this (should be award winning) photo of Adam Hill. It should be the caricature photo for something, like the Donkey for Democrats or the Elephant for Republicans?
    As for quoting regrets coming from the public who voted for Trump, just like the subject of toilet paper where nobody talks about their reason for choice, quietly most people love that the large expense of political correctness is being wiped by Trump and the stench of dirty laundry is now in the rinse cycle. There are no stinking regrets.

    (4) 14 Total Votes - 9 up - 5 down
  5. rukidding says:

    Maybe SLO got a jump on the marijuana situation and was happy at the time of re-electing this fool. What you see is what you got. How long will SLO be happy?

    (8) 24 Total Votes - 16 up - 8 down
  6. JB Bronson says:

    Adam Hill is the poster boy for locals in prominent positions, who instead of proving their competence, put on an air of arrogance and abuse of power as if simply holding a position means they know what they are doing. Consider the toxic culture fostered by the likes of Steve Adams, Tony Ferrara, Bruce Gibson, Lee Collins, Steve Gessell, Tracy Schiro, Micheal Blank, Bruce GIbson, Jim App, Lisa Solomon, Bruce Gibson…look at Los Osos and Morro Bay… Dee Torres, Biz Steinberg…John Wallace…should Ian Parkinson be in this list? Though not all of these people were elected, they all contribute to the “I’m drunk with power and it’s all about me” mentality that is undeniably pervasive in this area.

    (21) 27 Total Votes - 24 up - 3 down
  7. Myself says:

    I just about can’t believe that the voters in dist 3 are that dim to vote back in, I’m starting to think its our part timers that come to Poly that vote him in.
    Gibson isn’t much better only he doesn’t run off at the mouth as much as blimpsky here does, but when he does you just about can’t tell the two apart, I sincerly hope the voters in dist 2 take their smart pills this go around and loose gibson.

    (15) 21 Total Votes - 18 up - 3 down
    • Mariposa says:

      Unfortunately, just don’t see that happening on the next “go around.” Gibson’s district is way too entrenched in the forest – voters have truly lost sight of the trees.

      (4) 8 Total Votes - 6 up - 2 down
  8. slomike says:

    Thank you for your public service, Adam. Oh, and the new airport terminal is a gem.

    (-12) 26 Total Votes - 7 up - 19 down
  9. Rich in MB says:

    Lets face it…Hill benefits from being a Democrat in a town that would support a blind Democrat in an archery competition over a Republican.

    (24) 34 Total Votes - 29 up - 5 down

Leave a Comment