Comments by Barry Parr

Naomi Patridge mistakenly claims Supervisor Rich Gordon’s endorsement

I’m not sure anyone got a formal written confirmation from Gordon. Bonnie McClung didn’t, and Steve Skinner got an email.

My take on this mess is that we’d all be better off if the endorsements went away. But given that the last-minute ads in the Review were all about endorsements, it’s unlikely anytime soon.

Naomi Patridge mistakenly claims Supervisor Rich Gordon’s endorsement

Although Eshoo has formally endorsed Grady, Skinner, and Ferreira, Eshoo recalls a conversation with Naomi Patridge in the spring about the endorsement, according to Christine Stavem in Congresswoman Eshoo’s office. Eshoo will allow Patridge to continue to use her endorsement in her advertising.

Stavem manages a formal endorsement process for Eshoo, who, she says, rarely makes endorsements before the end of the filing period. It appears that Naomi didn’t go through the formal process, as did the other three candidates who received formal, written endorsements.

I called Stavem on Friday, and she was unable to reach Eshoo until Saturday morning. I’ve avoided posting on this until I had the word from Eshoo. 

Crucial school board meeting pushed back until after the election

Don’t forget Jim Larimer, CCWD board member, in both groups

Signage of the times

If the rule was “one acre, one vote”, Muteff/Patridge/McClung would be a shoo-in. I don’t know who owns those lots (Are they out-of-town developers?  I didn’t think so.), but they’re outnumbered by small homeowners.  And they need homeowner votes if they’re going to get what they want.

Clearly significant percentage of individual homeowners (and renters) know and respect Naomi and Bonnie from their numerous and significant community activities, or just like their politics. I’m certain this is true.  But George’s strategy seems to be to whip whatever anger and unhappiness exist among those homeowners into a frenzy.

My point is that the acreage seems to favor M/P/M, but I also acknowlege that they don’t have 100% of the big, empty lot vote.

Why didn’t the Review endorse Jim Harvey for MWSD?

Here’s a copy of one letter that the Review didn’t publish this week.

bp

Gary Warhaftig
Post Office Box 938
Montara, Ca. 94037
Tel: (650) 728-3806 e-mail:

October 20, 2005

Dear Editor,

Jim Harvey is running for a Board position on the Montara Water and Sanitary District and I would like to make some corrections to your editorial of October 12.  You are incorrect in saying that he was appointed to his current seat.  Over three years ago he was appointed to the Board to fill a vacancy.  Then in November, 2003, he ran for office and was elected by the voters .  The Community recognized the value of Jims contributions by giving him more than double the votes of his nearest competitor.

Labeling him as the “odd man out”, and then stating erroneously that he was appointed to his current seat on the Board, obscures the fact that he has been actively involved with water issues in Montara and Moss Beach for 20 years.  Jim and I along with a handful of others co-founded the Montara Moss Beach Water Improvement Association in the 1980’s.  The MMBWIA began the process that culminated in our gaining control of our own water system.  Jim not only uses his knowledge of water to bear on issues but he has an understanding of the history of water in our community .

As long as Jim Harvey is willing to be available for another term of community service, I will enthusiastically vote for him.

Gary Warhaftig
President
Montara Moss Beach Water
Improvement Association

Lawsuits were a big theme at Tuesday’s debate

I’ve asked ldw and hmbranger to cool it, stick to the facts, and forego the personal comments.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

I haven’t written much about No More Delays for the same reason I haven’t written much about the League for Coastside Protection. They’re not running for office.

But, since you asked, I think their ad in Wednesday’s Review is...um...disingenuous. 

They blame the current city council for the fact that we don’t have a middle school, when the members of NMD are a Who’s Who of the disastrous decision to put the school at Wavecrest and the slow-motion disaster of refusing to recognize that it was a bad idea over the course of ten years.

They say the incumbents want a new library and police station with no plans to pay for them. But so do the challengers and NMD.

And they accuse the incumbents of “playing the blame game” in an attack ad.  A kind word for that would be irony.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

I have made no endorsement in the HMBFPD board race because I don’t feel I’m familiar enough with the situation there to make a recommendation.

Coastsider endorses Jim Marsh for CCWD

A policy can be “growth-inducing” if it creates a burden on taxpayers that could be reduced if spread over a larger number of taxpayers. This would create a strong incentive to lift growth limits.  Excessive capital spending can have this effect. Failure to invest in public parks can have this effect, creating an incentive to bring in big developments and relying on the developer to create the resources we haven’t built for ourselves.  Jones and Larimer have made the argument that the Coastside needs Wavecrest-style development to build parks.

The growth limit has plenty of wiggle room, and can always be changed, especially if promises of infrastructure are on the table.

For an example, see this from the 10/24 Chronicle:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/24/BAGA0FCQR61.DTL&hw=antioch+pittsburg&sn=001&sc=1000

[begin quote]
The measures, which the builders qualified for the Nov. 8 election in Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood and Livermore, would expand current urban limit lines and allow the developers to build more homes on land that has been protected from development.

Opponents say the campaigns, the latest in 15 years of growth battles in the East Bay suburbs, are deceptive because the new developments would exacerbate already congested traffic and overcrowded schools.

Developers are promoting their projects by promising a variety of amenities, from road improvements or bypasses, money for schools and parks and an all-solar-powered development in Livermore that would have other environmentally friendly features.
[endquote]

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

Naomi Patridge isn’t running on her record. Her ads are about what she wants to do, not what she has done--or what she hasn’t done, in the case of her most recent ad.

Grady and Ferreira are running on the record, which I think is substantial. What I said about Skinner is that we know where he stands--alongside Grady and Ferreira. You may agree or disagree with his position, but the position itself is indisputable.

My concern about McClung is that she’s positioning herself as a “conservationist” without taking any conservationist positions or carrying any conservationist endorsements. In her 10/12 ad, she says she wants to end polarization, but (unlike Grady/Ferreira) all of her endorsements are from one pole of Coastside politics. It reminds me of GW Bush’s empty claim that he was “a uniter, not a divider”.

HMBRanger said

“And while you’re at it, how the heck can you argue that we know more about where Steve Skinner, a newcomer, stands than we do about Naomi Patridge, who has years of track record as a Council member and member of the community??

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

Regarding park financing, the city has three years of free financing from POST to put together the long-term funding.

Sid McCausland - a member of the Council’s Finance Committee - stated publicly that the cost of financing the purchase could paid for by the extra funds that would become available from the Transfer Occupancy Tax (T.O.T.) as the street repair expenditures decline from the initial rate of $600k per year to $300k per year.

I believe that Council has stated their desire to consolidate several necessary infrastructure improvements, including the library, police station, and parks and finance them with a bond, which would be the correct way to handle it.

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

A lot happened here since I last posted. I’ve been on the road since yesterday afternoon, so I hope my absence here wasn’t misinterpreted.  Let me see if I can address your questions. It might take a couple of posts.

I do think there’s an inconsistency in saying the City Council hasn’t gotten much done, when the opposition candidates seem to be saying they’ve done too much. And George Muteff seems to be saying both things at once.

I cited Voice of the Coast because knew they had a list of accomplishments I could link to. I have better things to do than to cut&paste;&rewrite;the candidates’ accomplishment lists. But, since you attacked their motives and not their facts, can we assume you don’t dispute the list?

Voice of the Coast has been open about who they are, how they’re funded and what their motives are. My guess is the lack of a statement on the website is an oversight.  I wouldn’t characterize their position as “no growth”, and if it is, they’re certainly making a mistake in backing Grady/Ferreira/Skinner, whom I have described as “slowish growth”.

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

Yes, Muteff’s complaining about the amount of money the city’s spending on lawyers.  On his website he says, the city spends a lot on legal fees for the LCP update, asking “‘is it defendable’, rather than is it right for our town.”

In other words, he’s unhappy that the city council is spending money with lawyers to make sure the LCP update is legal. The alternative is to figure that out down the road in court.  And since when are legal and “right for our town” mutually exclusive?

I also don’t think he has outlined an LCP proposal that he feels would be “right for our town”.

I’m not going to list the city council’s accomplishments here. But Voice of the Coast ran a good list a few weeks ago. I think it’s impressive for a small-town, part-time city council:

http://voiceofthecoast.com/2005/09/editorial_half_moon_bays_city.html

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

Your argument seems to be that the city is in deficit, but they’re not spending enough money. I think most of that Ritz money was used to repair some long-neglected streets.

“Lawsuits” is a handwaving argument. There’s enough money at stake in the development business to sue the city when it’s enforcing the law or conducting the people’s business, in hopes that they’ll just cave. In those cases, is the city at fault? You need to cite specific suits where the suing parties have a righteous cause and have either won or are likely to win.

The Cypress Cove lawsuit was a politically-motivated set-up that that the city lost, but it should never have been filed and resulted in no satisfaction for the plaintiffs.  The city won the Terrace Ave and Beachwood lawsuits resoundingly. The city reached a settlement with Wavecrest, resulting in a better development and benefits for the city.

But you’re right about one thing. If the current city council majority is overturned, there will be fewer lawsuits from developers, who will be happier.

Coastsider endorses Ferreira, Grady, and Skinner

I made the point that Patridge, Muteff, and McClung have not demonstrated that they are better managers or more open than the incumbents or Steve Skinner.  They have made an empty claim.

Furthermore (and I should have made this more clear) the current City Council has set a high standard in the area of good management. They have accomplished a heck of a lot in the last couple of years, and it’s all good stuff, regardless of your stand on growth.  The big piece where they have failed to acheive their goals has been the LCP update, which comes as no little comfort to their opponents.

I had to stop myself from laughing out loud at Tuesday’s City Council meeting when George Muteff went after the incumbents for failing to deliver an LCP update.  He is on record as saying that the City Council has accomplished too much to suit his taste.  He said, “As far as I’m concerned, they’re on too much of a roll, and rolling way too fast.” here:

http://hmbreview.com/articles/2005/04/13/news/editorial/story3.txt

Finally, I said you should pick your candidates based on their stands on the issues, and not their management ability. And I think that the opposition have been less than completely open in their public statements of where they stand on development. That’s one of the reasons for all their hand-waving about “management” and “openness”.

Letter: George Muteff takes his City Council campaign to right-wing radio

I think westofeast is asking you to prove this crowd exists, and has any influence. Particuarly in Half Moon Bay, which is the context of this conversation.  That wouldn’t be name-calling.

And let’s all try to dial down the anger.

Letter: George Muteff takes his City Council campaign to right-wing radio

Are you saying that the current HMB City Council majority are against building anything? It doesn’t appear that way to me. Ferreira and Grady have been endorsed by the building trades unions and Wavecrest’s management, who, as far as I can tell, like building things on the Coastside.

Letter: Coastal Development Permit complicates building a fire pit on private land

Where is this land located and what’s your local jurisdiction?

We need a common vision of downtown Half Moon Bay

I’m sure the downtown merchants already knew that most stores downtown are being subsidized, but this survey allowed them to quantify it so that the rest of us (me, for example) would understand what they’re up against.

I agree that lifestyle businesses can be a problem for downtown’s economic vitality.

You also raise an excellent point about hours of operation. I have also heard (from a merchant) than many store owners are reluctant to stay open late and don’t want to schedule events like Nights of Light on Fridays because they’d rather not work on a Friday night.

Thank God for Moon News, which is usually the only Main Street store open after dark.

We need a common vision of downtown Half Moon Bay

I agree that some bad decisions were made that have damaged downtown. I also know I’m late to the party on this. And I know that fixing this problem is hard.

But,(1) the value of downtowns is an accepted value in a way that it was not even a decade ago, (2) downtowns can be and have been revived, (3) there seems to be more agreement that something needs to be done, and (4) I’m not prepared to just throw up my hands and say downtown HMB is doomed and move on to Pacifica.

Let’s get after the people who are neglecting downtown or actively hurting it, and not those that love it and are trying to make it better.

Page 21 of 26 pages « First  <  19 20 21 22 23 >  Last »