NOTE: In all the excitement last week, we didn’t get a chance to post this earlier.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to give MCTV what it has been asking for. At its Tuesday, April 4 meeting, the board voted to approve the extension of the Comcast cable franchise, allocate to MCTV an amount equal to what Coastsiders will pay in franchise fees during the 15 years of the contract, and require Comcast to continue its agreement with MCTV as part of the franchise agreement.

In a press release MCTV president Connie Malach wrote, “These actions by the Board of Supervisors fulfill all the requests that MCTV made to the Supervisors.”

MCTV, the Coastside’s cable access Channel 6, is still unhappy with the county’s proposed allocation of franchise fees from Comcast.  The county’s approach to allocating special fees collected from Coastside customers to MCTV has improved from a plan to give none of the money collected on the Coastside to the Coastside’s public access access station. But the current proposal gives only a third of the money collected on the Coastside to MCTV and uses the remainder to build a Bayside network [PDF of county staff recommendations].

Comcast will collect $.55 per subscribing household over the next 15 years to pay for two things: (1) $380,000 in cash for capital items for public, educational, and government (PEG) stations, i.e. MCTV and Pen TV, and (2)$620,000 to build a fiber optic network (called INET) connecting county offices and Pen TV to allow for the transmission of live programming.

About 22% of the funds will be collected from Comcast subscribers on the Coastside. Pen TV provides programming to Bayside cable systems.

County staff has proposed to the Board of Supervisors that MCTV receive 22% of the PEG capital grants, about $83,000. But the entire $620,000 would be spent to INET, which will not connect to the Coastside, although 22% of its cost will be collected from Coastside subscribers.

MCTV wants the county to allocate another $140,000 (22% of the $620,000 for INET) to it as well. They argue that the fiber network will not benefit Coastsiders, and that $83,000 would be insufficient for MCTV’s capital needs over the next 15 years.

Because the $620,000 is being provided to the county as in-kind services by Comcast in building the fiber network, MCTV proposes to take the additional $140,000 out of $398,000 in cash for PEG capital spending.

The supervisors are likely to take this up again at their April 4 meeting, and MCTV is asking Coastsiders to show up and support them.

In its endorsements for the Montara Water and Sanitary District, the Half Moon Bay Review seems to have gotten confused.

In endorsing Paul Perkovic, Bob Ptacek, and Peggy Ruse for seats on the board, the Review concluded:

That leaves Jim Harvey the odd man out. He was appointed to his current seat three years ago and generally agrees with the other incumbents on issues of planning and water supply. He has been a good steward; we simply found him the least strong of four good candidates.

Actually, although Jim Harvey was appointed to his seat three years ago, it was a two-year seat and he stood for election in 2003. In that election, he was endorsed by the Review over Peggy Ruse [Review’s 2003 endorsements], who was running against him for the two-year seat, and Harvey soundly defeated Ruse [PDF of election results], with 55% of the votes to Ruse’s 8% (she was fourth in a four-way race).

Coastsiders have written to the Review to set the record straight, but none of their letters appeared in Wednesday’s paper, the first after the paper’s MWSD endorsement appeared.

Review Managing Editor Clay Lambert replied to Coastsider’s email asking what happened:

I think even the folks who complain about the newspaper (at least those who take the time to correspond) know that I print virtually every letter I get—including those that are critical of me. Frequent writers also know that I print them in the order in which they are received. I ran out of room for about a half-dozen last week. I will make every effort to get them all in this week.

Jim Harvey, a good and thoughtful man who impressed me very much during our interview, was originally appointed and subsequently elected. That could have been more clear in our endorsement.

Grade the News reports that the San Francisco Examiner and Independent have agreed to label as advertising a restaurant news column that has been running in the papers for years.

Great quotes:

• “Yes, I use the column as an initiative to get advertisers to run an ad,” Mr. Habit said. “The paper gives me a free rein.”


• Mr. Habit said he occasionally writes about restaurants that he has no hope of selling an ad to. “I do that to have the pages look more ethical,” he said.


• Mr. Habit said that when he started working for the now-defunct Peninsula Times-Tribune, “It let me do it without any advertising label on top.” The paper at the time was owned by the Tribune Company. “And the Chicago Tribune, that’s an ethical operation.”

The easiest job in journalism, even easier than being George Bush’s press secretary, is to write the corrections for the Half Moon Bay Review’s editorial page. We’re not sure how he got the job (he’s not saying), but Review Editorial Corrections Editor Oliver DeNiles did sit down with us to answer a few questions about the Review’s August 10 editorial.

Coastsider: In its August 10 editorial, the Review said that �Section 84308 [of California�s Political Reform Act] notes that state officers, including Coastal Commissioners, shall not �direct� anyone to contribute more than $250 to anyone with a matter currently pending before the state.� But the law actually says that the donor--and not the recipient--should not have a financial interest in any matter pending before the state.  How did the Review address this error after it was pointed out?

A: The Review stands by its Aug. 10 editorial. Readers who missed it can decide for themselves by logging on to http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/08/11/news/editorial/story01.txt

Coastsider: The Review’s editorial expressed a lot of concern about ex parte communications in its editorial about coastal commissioner Sara Wan’s appearance at a Coastside fundraiser, but Sara Wan is the only coastal commissioner who doesn’t take ex parte communications. Why bring it up?

A: The Review stands by its Aug. 10 editorial. Readers who missed it can decide for themselves by logging on to http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/08/11/news/editorial/story01.txt

Coastsider: Why did your editorial mention a certain City Council member three times in the course of alleging unethical behavior by someone else, and then say he’s not at fault?

A: The Review stands by its Aug. 10 editorial. Readers who missed it can decide for themselves by logging on to http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/08/11/news/editorial/story01.txt

Coastsider: The editorial said that coastal commissioners should not be involved in local politics. But, by law, half of the commissioners are local elected officials.  How would you make that work?

A: The Review stands by its Aug. 10 editorial. Readers who missed it can decide for themselves by logging on to http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2005/08/11/news/editorial/story01.txt

Coastsider: I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Wednesday’s editorial in the Half Moon Bay Review reminds me of physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s famous assessment of a scientific paper: “It’s not even wrong”.

Our hapless editorialist opens by describing a local political fundraiser and saying that no laws were broken there. But the author does fret because the guest of honor was California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan, saying “Section 84308 [of California’s Political Reform Act] notes that state officers, including Coastal Commissioners, shall not “direct” anyone to contribute more than $250 to anyone with a matter currently pending before the state.”

Well, no, that’s not what the law says. The law actually says that the donor--and not the recipient--should not have a financial interest in any matter pending before the state.

The editorial then veers off into a long digression on the (very real) evils of ex parte communication. But it fails to note that no ex parte communication took place at the event. Or that Sara Wan is the only coastal commissioner who refuses all ex parte communications—a fact she mentioned in her presentation to the group.

The next to the last paragraph betrays what all the sound and fury is about: “The fault here is not his [Half Moon Bay City Council member Mike Ferreira’s]. He is simply raising money and awareness for his campaign.” That’s right, Ferreira’s not at fault.  But he’s mentioned three times by name. Supposed bad girl Sara Wan is mentioned once.

The editorial concludes with the sheerest of nonsense. “Coastal Commissioners should steer clear of local politics in every instance”. How is this possible when half the commissioners are required by law to be local elected officials?

This is an interesting document. We’re wringing our hands about a legal appearance at a legal event at which unethical behavior was actively discouraged. Meanwhile an elected official who’s not at fault is forgiven for things he didn’t do. And we conclude with a recommendation that defies the laws of physics and the state of California.

This is not the first time the Review has served up a disingenuous or conveniently inaccurate editorial that condemns the city council with innuendo. Auric Goldfinger said it best: “There is a saying in Chicago, Mr. Bond: ‘Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action’.”

The people who created MCTV, the Coastside’s community TV station, got together to celebrate 20 years of service to the community on Sunday.

Wedged in between foggy days, we had a few hours to enjoy the sunshine and views of Princeton Harbor from the deck of the Harbor House.

CEO Connie Malach paid tribute to the channel’s board members, producers, videographers, editors, staff, and volunteers.  It’s amazing how many people are working really hard to produce this service for the Coastside.

The evening’s program included clips from 20 years of original programming produced for MCTV. Connie said that the station is working to move all those hours of tapes in various formats to a single digital format so they could be made available to the public.

Click on one of the pictures to see Coastsider’s album of photos from the party.

Today is the twentieth anniversary of Mid-Coast Television (Chanel 6), the Coastside�s community access cable station.

In 1985 MCTV aired its first program, the Coastside Junior Rodeo. Today, MCTV braodcasts over 1500 hours of community meeting programming each year, including the Cabrillo Unified School District, Coastside County Water District, Granada Sanitary District, Montara Water & Sanitary District, and San Mateo County Board of Supervisors.

Click “read more” to see the press release

Matt Kapko, news writer for the Half Moon Bay Review, is leaving after less than a year on the paper.  His last day is Friday.  Matt’s byline first appeared in the Review in June of last year.  Matt wrote seven of the fourteen bylined stories in the news section of Wednesday’s Review.

Matt’s going to work for Bay City News, a news service based in San Francisco.  BCN’s reports are often used by local television stations. “We’re really going to miss him,” Review managing editor Clay Lambert told me.

If you haven’t read the editorial in Wednesday’s Half Moon Bay Review, don’t deny yourself this treat.

From its clumsy headline, “Council continues to be disingenuous”, to its awkward setup, “Have you heard the one about the City Council that purchased parkland...”, to its ham-fisted punchline, “it’s a pity that we’ve come to the point that the planning process is merely a joke”, this unsigned editorial is an unintentionally entertaining window into the thinking behind our local paper. I can see why the word “disingenuous” came to mind.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the author had to squeegee the spittle off their computer screen when he or she was finished.

This isn’t the first time the Review has lost its cool and descended into junior high school snarkiness. In October, publisher Debra Godshall had to have the last word so badly that she responded to a column by city council member (and now mayor) Jim Grady on the opposite page of the same issue with “Grady ends his Matter of Opinion article in today’s paper on Page 5A by saying, “Doesn’t our community deserve better than that?” It does indeed, Jim.”

It...does...indeed.

I’ve put together a reading list for the editors of the Review which I hope will improve their editorial-writing skills and knowledge of the dynamics affecting the Coastside. I’ve set it up as an Amazon wish list. You can go online and pay to have these books delivered to Debra Godshall at the Review’s offices. [Amazon.com]

Elements of Style, Strunk and White. Strunk and White admonish us “Do not affect a breezy manner”. They would also advise us not to use the word “admonish”.

Geography Of Nowhere: The Rise And Decline of America’s Man-Made Landscape, James Howard Kunstler.  This is the book that made me understand what sprawl is and why it’s so awful. It’s a lot like the pill they give Neo in The Matrix—don’t read it if you want to remain contented with your surroundings. Not only is this book enlightening, it’s funny as hell.

On Writing Well, by William Zinsser. The best book ever written on writing nonfiction. This book made me understand why everyone needs an editor—even the editor.

The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs. Fifty years ago, Jane Jacobs explained how cities work, why it matters, and how easy it is to mess them up. It’s still the definitive work on the subject, and informs all modern thought about how we live in built communities.

The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, by Robert A. Caro. The astonishing biography of an idealist who tried to make New York into a paradise, only to destroy it with his hubris. This book is a must for anyone who wants to understand how city planning really works.

The Press, by A.J. Liebling.  This is a great book and I recommend it to everyone. Liebling, who wrote about the press for The New Yorker in the 1940’s, is famous for saying “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one”— but he also wrote “People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that this indispensable book is out of print and not in the county library catalog. I’ve added it to the wish list in the hopes that it’ll come back. Liebling lived in an era when newspapers were manifestations of their publishers’ personal prejudices and commercial interests, and it makes you realize that the age of corporate journalism is not an unalloyed disaster.

What books would you add to the Review’s wish list? Add your suggestions to the list by clicking on the comments link.